New  England 

*• 

■* "  *  '  .  * 

Arbitration  and  Peace 

Congress 


REPORT  OF  THE  PROCEEDINGS 


HARTFORD  AND  NEW  BRITAIN 

CONNECTICUT 

JXI933  MAY  8  to  II,  1910 

.1910 


'  '<2. 

^Z.24,15 

Logical  st^' 


JXI933 

,  1910 


J 


y 


) 


-  \ 


« 


The  President  of  the  Congress. 

HENRY  WADE  ROGERS,  LL.D., 

Dean  of  the  Yale  Law  School. 


REPORT 


OF  THE 


FEB  24  1915 

'^SiPGlUl 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 

NEW  ENGLAND  ARBITRATION 
AND  PEACE  CONGRESS 


HARTFORD  AND  NEW  BRITAIN,  CONNECTICUT 

MAY  8  TO  11,  1910. 


Edited  by  James  L.  Tryon 

Assistant  Secretary  of  the  American  Peace  Society 
31  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 


BOSTON 

THE  AMERICAN  PEACE  SOCIETY 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONGRESS 


President. 

Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  Yale  Law  School,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Vice-Presidents. 

President  F.  H.  Beede,  New  England  Association  of  School  Superintendents, 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

Judge  Loyed  E.  Chamberlain,  President  of  the  Massachusetts  State  Board 
of  Trade,  Brockton,  Mass. 

His  Excellency  Eben  S.  Draper,  Governor  of  Massachusetts. 

President  W.  H.  P.  Faunce,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I. 

His  Excellency  Bert  M.  Fernald,  Governor  of  Maine. 

Chief  Justice  Frederick  B.  Hall,  Bridgeport,  Conn. 

Chief  Justice  Marcus  P.  Knowlton,  Boston,  Mass. 

Hon.  Charles  F.  Libby,  President  American  Bar  Association,  Portland,  Me. 
Rt.  Rev.  William  N.  McVickar,  Bishop  of  Rhode  Island,  Providence,  R.  I. 
Rev.  Philip  S.  Moxom,  D.  D.,  Springfield,  Mass. 

Hon.  Richard  Olney,  Boston,  Mass. 

His  Excellency  George  H.  Prouty,  Governor  of  Vermont. 

His  Excellency  Henry  B.  Quinby,  Governor  of  New  Hampshire. 

Hon.  Josiah  Quincy,  Boston,  Mass. 

Chief  Justice  John  W.  Rowell,  Randolph,  Vt. 

President  William  Arnold  Shanklin,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown, 
Conn. 

Hon.  Moorfield  Storey,  Ex-President  American  Bar  Association,  Boston, 
Mass. 

Ex-President  William  J.  Tucker,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H. 

His  Excellency  Frank  B.  Weeks,  Governor  of  Connecticut. 

Executive  Committee. 

Principal  Arthur  Deerin  Call,  Chairman,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Rodney  W.  Roundy,  Executive  Secretary,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  Edward  Prior,  Treasurer,  Hartford,  Conn. 


PROGRAM  OF  THE  PROCEEDINGS. 


SUNDAY,  MAY  8. 

0.30  A.  M.  Special  Peace  Services  in  the  Churches  of  Hartford,  New  Britain 
and  Vicinity. 

3.30  P.  M.  Mass  Meeting  in  Foot  Guard  Hall.  Rev.  Rockwell  Harmon  Potter, 
D.  D.,  Presiding.  Music  by  Colt’s  Orchestra.  Singing  by  Male  Chorus  and 
Audience.  Introduction  of  Charles  J.  Donahue,  President  of  the  Connecticut 
Federation  of  Labor,  New  Haven,  Conn.  Address:  “Labor’s  Interest  in 
World  Peace,”  John  Brown  Lennon,  Treasurer  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  Bloomington,  Ill.  Address:  “The  Workman  and  the  Gun  Man,” 
Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals,  Field  Secretary  of  the  American  Peace  Society, 
Chicago,  Ill. 

7.45.  P.  M.  General  Peace  Meeting  in  Parsons  Theatre.  Consecration  Service. 
Rt.  Rev.  Chauncey  B.  Brewster,  1).  D.,  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  Presiding. 
“The  Twenty-Third  Psalm,”  Schubert ,  Girls’  Glee  Club,  Hartford  High 
School,  Ralph  L.  Baldwin,  Director.  Prayer,  Rev.  John  Coleman  Adams, 
D.  D.  “Lift  Thine  Eyes,”  from  “Elijah,”  Mendelssohn,  Girls’  Glee  Club. 
Address:  “The  Causes  of  War  and  the  Bases  of  Peace,”  Rev.  G.  Glenn 
Atkins,  D.  D.,  Providence,  R.  I.  “List  the  Cherubic  Host,”  from  “The 
Holy  City,”  Gaul,  Girls’  Glee  Club,  assisted  by  Josephine  M.  Simpson  and 
Arthur  E.  Howard,  Jr.  Address:  “The  Growing  Power  of  Public  Senti¬ 
ment  for  Peace,”  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  LL.  D.,  General  Secretary  of  the 
American  Peace  Society,  Boston,  Mass. 

New  Britain. 

Stereopticon  Lecture:  “The  Federation  of  the  World,”  Hamilton  Holt,  Manag. 
ing  Editor  of  the  Independent,  New  York  City,  N.  \  . 

MONDAY,  MAY  9. 

Forenoon.  Registration  of  Delegates  at  Center  Church  House.  Addresses  in 
the  Schools  of  Hartford  and  New  Britain  by  Visiting  Delegates. 

2.00  P.  M.  State  Capitol,  Hotise  of  Representatives.  Congress  Called  to 
Order.  Introduction  of  the  President  of  the  Congress  by  Arthur  Deerin 
Call,  President  of  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society.  Welcome:  Acting 
Lieutenant-Governor,  Hon.  Isaac  W.  Brooks.  Welcome:  Hon.  Edward  L. 
Smith,  Mayor  of  Hartford.  President’s  Address  :  «  The  Present  Problem  — 
How  War  is  to  Be  Abolished,”  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  Yale  Law  School. 

-  Address  :  «  Lessons  from  the  History  of  the  Peace  Movement,”  Benjamin  F. 
Trueblood,  LL.  D.,  General  Secretary  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 
Appointment  of  Committee  on  Resolutions. 

4.30  to  6.00  P.  M.  Reception  to  Delegates  at  the  Center  Church  House. 


VI 


8.oo  P.  M.  Ce?iter  Church.  Prof.  Melancthon  W.  Jacobus,  Dean  of  the  Hart¬ 
ford  Theological  Seminary,  Presiding.  Letters  from  President  Taft,  Secre¬ 
tary  of  State  Knox  and  Others.  Address  :  “  Some  Supposed  Just  Causes  for 
War,”  Hon.  Jackson  H.  Ralston,  Washington,  D.  C.  Address  :  “  A  Three- 
Plank  Peace  Platform,”  Rev.  O.  P.  Gifford,  D.  D.,  Brookline,  Mass. 

TUESDAY,  MAY  JO. 

9.30  A.  M.  Center  Church  Hoicse.  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers  Presiding.  Ad¬ 
dress  :  “  How  Women  Must  Defend  the  Republic,”  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead, 
Boston,  Mass.  Address:  “The  Dynamic  of  a  Successful  World  Peace 
Movement,”  President  John  M.  Thomas,  Middlebury  College,  Vermont.  Ad¬ 
dress  :  “  The  Power  of  Women  to  Promote  Peace  through  the  Schools,”  Mrs. 
Fannie  Fern  Andrews,  Secretary  of  the  American  School  Peace  League, 
Boston,  Mass.  Address :  “  The  New  Internationalism  in  the  Schools,”  Mrs. 
May  Wright  Sewall,  National  Council  of  Women.  Address  :  “  Work  Among 
Women’s  Clubs,”  Mrs.  Anna  Sturges  Duryea,  International  School  of  Peace, 
Boston. 

Afternoon  Session  in  New  Britain. 

Centennial  Peace  Pilgrimage  to  the  Home  Town  of  Elihu  Burritt. 

1.30  P.  M.  Delegates  and  Invited  Guests  Leave  Hartford  in  Automobiles. 

2.30  P.  M.  Parade  of  Peace  Army  of  Three  Thousand  School  Children.  National 
Societies  and  Lodges,  writh  Bands,  Banners,  Floats,  etc. 

4.00  P.  M.  Exercises  at  Burritt’s  Grave.  Singing  by  Children’s  Choir.  Inter¬ 
national  Tribute  at  Burritt’s  Monument  by  Representatives  of  the  Nations. 
Address:  Hon.  James  Brown  Scott,  Solicitor-General  of  the  Department  of 
State,  Washington,  D.  C. 

5.30  P.  M.  Reception  and  Inspection  of  Burritt  Relics  at  New  Britain  Institute. 

6.30  P.  M.  Supper  to  the  Delegates  of  the  Congress  and  Invited  Guests. 

Evening  Session  in  New  Britain. 

7.45  P.  M.  Mass  Meeting  in  Russwin  Lyceum .  Hon.  Charles  Eliot  Mitchell 
Presiding.  Invocation,  Rev.  Richard  F.  Moore,  LL.  D.  Music  :  Gounod’s 
“  Gallia,”  rendered  by  a  Centennial  Chorus  of  a  Hundred  Voices,  Prof.  E.  F. 
Laubin,  Director.  Singing  by  Children’s  Choir  from  St.  Mary’s  Parochial 
School  and  by  the  New  Britain  Quartet  Club.  Welcome:  Hon.  Joseph  M. 
Halloran,  Mayor  of  New  Britain.  Response:  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers. 
Address:  “Elihu  Burritt,”  Rabbi  Stephen  S.  Wise,  Free  Synagogue,  New 
York  City,  N.  Y.  Address:  Ex-Governor  George  H.  Utter,  Westerly, 
R.  I.  Delegates  Return  to  Hartford. 

WEDNESDAY,  MAY  JJ. 

9.30  A.  M.  Center  Church  House.  President  Flavel  S.  Luther,  Trinity  College, 
Presiding.  Address  :  “  The  Peace  of  God,”  Rev.  Professor  Kilpatrick,  D.D., 
Knox  College,  Toronto,  Can.  Address:  “The  International  School  of 
Peace,”  Edward  Ginn,  its  Founder,  Boston,  Mass.  Address  :  “  What  the 
Results  of  the  Hague  Conferences  Demand  of  the  Nations,”  Edwin  D. 


Vll 


Mead,  Director  of  the  International  School  of  Peace,  Boston,  Mass.  Ad¬ 
dress  :  “Europe’s  Optical  Illusion,”  Rev.  Walter  Walsh,  Dundee,  Scotland. 

2.30  P.  M.  Center  Church.  Judge  Robert  F.  Raymond  of  the  Massachusetts 
Superior  Court  Presiding.  Unfinished  Business  of  the  Congress.  Message 
to  Queen  Alexandra.  Reading  of  Letters  from  Governor  Draper  and  Secre¬ 
tary  of  War  Dickinson.  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  —  the 
Platform.  Greeting  to  Hon.  Robert  Treat  Paine.  Address  :  Judge  Raymond. 

3.30  P.  M.  Address  :  “  International  Law  as  a  Factor  in  the  Establishment  of 
Peace,”  Hon.  Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  Ex-Chief  Justice  of  the  Superior  Court 
of  Connecticut. 

3.00  P.  M.  Center  Church  House  :  Teachers’  Session.  Address:  Mrs.  Fannie 
Fern  Andrews. 

3.45  P.  M.  Adjournment  to  Center  Church. 

4.00  P.  M.  Annual  Public  Meeting  of  the  American  Peace  Society.  Address  : 
“War  Not  Inevitable.  Illustrations  from  the  History  of  Our  Country,” 
Hon.  John  W.  Foster,  Ex-Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C.  Business 
Meeting.  Annual  Report  of  the  Directors  and  the  Treasurer.  Election  of 
Officers. 

Closing  Session. 

6.30  P.  M.  Banquet  at  the  Allyn  House ,  under  the  Auspices  of  the  Hartford 
Business  Men’s  Association.  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers  Presiding.  Speak¬ 
ers :  Hon.  George  B.  Chandler,  Rocky  Hill,  Conn.;  Hon.  Herbert  Knox 
Smith,  Washington,  D.  C. ;  Poem  by  Burges  Johnson  ;  Rev.  Walter  Walsh  ; 
Rev.  Philip  S.  Moxom,  D.  D.,  Springfield,  Mass. ;  Prof.  Masujiro  Honda, 
Japan  ;  Message  from  Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt,  Washington,  D.  C.  ;  Edwin  D 
Mead;  Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood, 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Labor’s  Interest  in  World  Peace.  John  Brown  Lennon..  3 

The  Workman  and  the  Gun  Man.  Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals  7 
The  Causes  of  War  and  the  Bases  of  Peace.  Rev.  G. 

Glenn  Atkins ,  D.D.  .  16 

The  Growing  Power  of  Public  Sentiment  for  Peace. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood, ,  LL.  D . .  22 

The  Present  Problem  :  How  War  is  to  Be  Abolished. 

Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers ,  LL.D .  26 

/'Lessons  from  the  History  of  the  Peace  Movement. 

Benjamm  F.  Trueblood ,  LL.  D .  40 

Some  Supposed  Just  Causes  of  War.  Hon.  Jackson  H. 

Ralston .  48 

A  Three-Plank  Peace  Platform.  Rev.  O.  P.  Gifford ,  D.D.  54 
How  Women  Must  Defend  the  Republic.  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames 

Mead .  57 

The  Dynamic  of  a  Successful  World  Peace  Movement. 

President  John  M.  Thomas .  62 

The  Power  of  Women  to  Promote  Peace  in  the  Schools. 

Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews .  67 

The  New  Internationalism  in  the  Schools.  Mrs.  May 

Wright  Sewall .  71 

/  Burritt  Celebration .  73 

\  Eli hu  Burritt.  Hon.  James  Brown  Scott .  83 

VElihu  Burritt.  Rabbi  Stephen  S.  Wise .  89 

The  Peace  of  God.  Professor  T.  B.  Kilpatrick ,  D.D .  95 

The  International  School  of  Peace.  Edwin  Ginn....  97 

The  Results  of  the  Two  Hague  Conferences  and  the  De¬ 
mands  upon  the  Third  Conference.  Edwm  D.  Mead  10 1 

Europe’s  Optical  Illusion.  Rev.  Walter  Walsh .  108 

Platform  of  Resolutions .  113 

International  Law  as  a  Factor  in  the  Establishment 

of  Peace.  Hon.  Simeon  E.  Baldwm .  115 

War  Not  Inevitable.  Illustrations  from  the  History 

of  our  Country.  Hon.  John  W.  Foster .  122 

Teachers’  Meeting .  132 

Banquet  at  the  Allyn  House .  133 

APPENDIX  —  Historical  Sketches* 

^Connecticut  in  the  Early  Peace  Movement.  Mrs.  Mabel 

W^.  S.  Call .  *38 

'New  Hampshire  in  the  Peace  Movement.  James  L.  Tryon  144 


Committees  of  the  Congress .  148 

Members  of  the  Congress .  1^4 

Index .  163 


' 


‘ 


INTRODUCTION. 


Next  to  the  National  Congresses  held  in  New  York  and 
Chicago  and  the  International  Congresses  held  in  Chicago  and 
Boston,  the  New  England  Peace  and  Arbitration  Congress  was 
the  most  important  gathering  of  the  representatives  and  friends 
of  the  organized  peace  movement  that  has  been  held  in  this 
country.  It  was  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  American 
Peace  Society  and  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society.  Its  leading 
features  were  valuable  addresses  of  a  historical  and  ethical 
character  on  the  growth  and  aims  of  the  peace  movement  and 
a  memorable  celebration  of  the  one  hundredth  anniversary  of 
the  birth  of  Elihu  Burritt.  The  proceedings  of  the  Congress, 
together  with  the  speeches  made  at  its  sessions,  are  here  re¬ 
ported  from  day  to  clay,  but  are  necessarily  condensed  in  order 
to  bring  the  account  within  reasonable  compass. 

By  courtesy  of  the  Center  Congregational  Church  and  its 
pastor,  Rev.  Rockwell  Harmon  Potter,  D.  D.,  who  from  the 
first  was  deeply  interested  in  the  Congress,  its  principal  ses¬ 
sions  were  held  in  Center  Church  House,  where  headquarters 
for  the  organizing  committee  had  also  been  provided  without 
charge. 

Dr.  Robert  S.  Friedman  of  New  York  decorated  the  audito¬ 
rium  with  beautiful  peace  flags.  Business  men  and  the  people 
of  Hartford  and  New  Britain  were  generous  in  giving  financial 
support  to  the  Congress  and  in  extending  hospitality  to  the 
delegates. 

A  variety  of  organizations  were  represented.  Delegates 
came  from  churches,  philanthropic  associations,  schools,  col¬ 
leges,  boards  of  trade,  labor  organizations,  consumers’  leagues, 
charity  organizations,  municipalities,  state  commissions,  the 
Women’s  Christian  Temperance  Union,  men’s  clubs,  women’s 
clubs,  art  and  religious,  civic  and  literary  societies,  sunshine 
clubs,  suffrage  leagues,  the  Sons  and  Daughters  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Revolution,  Spanish  War  veterans  and  lodges. 

To  the  Chairman  of  the  Executive  Committee,  Mr.  Arthur 
Deerin  Call,  and  to  the  Executive  Secretary,  Rev.  Rodney  W. 
Roundy,  the  success  of  the  Congress  was  mainly  due,  but  they 
were  ably  assisted  by  committees  in  Hartford  and  New  Britain. 
In  the  latter  city  Rev.  Herbert  A.  Jump  lent  valuable  aid  in 
organizing  the  Burritt  celebration.  The  Congress  was  fortunate 


Xll 


in  the  choice  of  its  President,  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers  of  the 
Yale  University  Law  School,  whose  interest  in  the  peace  move¬ 
ment  and  happy  manner  as  presiding  officer  made  it  possible 
for  him  to  be  of  great  service  to  the  peace  cause  in  bringing  it 
to  the  attention  of  the  people  of  New  England  and  in  executing 
the  program  of  addresses. 

The  idea  of  holding  a  New  England  Congress  was  proposed 
by  the  General  Secretary  of  the  American  Peace  Society,  who, 
from  time  to  time,  gave  his  counsel  to  the  Executive  Com¬ 
mittee  as  needed.  To  Dr.  Trueblood,  also,  the  thanks  of  the 
editor  are  due  for  suggestions  and  oversight  in  the  preparation 

of  this  report. 

Full  and  accurate  stenographic  notes  taken  by  J.  J.  Holmes 
of  New  Haven  have  made  it  possible  in  several  cases  in  which 
manuscripts  were  lacking  to  give  verbatim  reports  of  the 

speeches. 


LABOR  MEETING* 

Foot  Guard  Hall,  Sunday  Afternoon,  May  8,  at  3  o'clock. 

Rev.  Rockwell  Harmon  Potter,  D.  D.,  Presiding. 

Sunday  was  observed  by  the  churches  generally  as  a  special 
Peace  Sunday,  invitations  having  been  sent  by  Mr.  Roundy  to 
the  ministers  of  Connecticut  inviting  them  to  make  the  day  an 
occasion  for  special  sermons.  The  pulpits  of  Hartford,  New 
Britain  and  neighboring  cities  were  occupied  by  speakers  from 
the  Congress.  The  visitors  brought  its  influence  to  a  large 
number  of  persons  who  were  unable  to  attend  any  of  the  sessions. 

In  the  afternoon  a  mass  meeting,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  relation  of  organized  labor  to  the  peace  movement,  was  held 
in  Foot  Guard  Hall.  Music  was  furnished  by  Colt’s  Orchestra. 
There  was  inspiring  singing  by  a  male  chorus  and  by  the 
audience. 

In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  Dr.  Potter,  who  presided,  gave 
a  hearty  welcome  to  the  representatives  of  the  labor  organi¬ 
zations  that  were  present.  He  then  paid  the  following  tribute 
to  heroes  of  peace  who  have  come  from  the  ranks  of  labor  : 

BURRITT  AND  CREMER,  HEROES  OF  PEACE. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  workingmen  are  not  to  be  welcomed 
in  their  representatives  to  a  meeting  in  the  interests  of  peace 
as  though  they  were  guests  and  had  no  part  in  it.  What  a 
mockery  it  would  be  for  a  minister  to  stand  up  and  ask  the 
workingmen  to  come  into  the  peace  movement !  What  a 
mockery  it  would  be  for  the  lawyers  or  the  teachers  to  stand 
up  and  invite  the  workingmen  to  come  into  it  as  though  they 
had  not  been  in  it !  When  on  Tuesday  afternoon  we  shall  go 
to  New  Britain  to  commemorate  the  one  hundredth  birth  year 
of  that  learned  blacksmith  who  was  a  pioneer  in  the  peace 
movement  in  this  country,  around  whose  name  has  gathered 
the  romance  that  has  charmed  those  of  us  who  have  been  con¬ 
cerned  in  the  planning  of  this  Congress,  we  shall  come  to  see 
that  his  name  is  written  high  on  the  roll  of  Connecticut’s  heroes. 
We  have  come  to  doubt  whether  Connecticut  has  ever  had  a 
son  who  deserves  a  higher  place  on  the  grand  list  of  humanity’s 
chieftains.  We  have  come  to  feel  that  when  the  roll  of  her 


2 


heroes  is  made  up,  and  when  the  last  statue  has  been  placed 
in  the  Capitol  building,  the  statue  of  Elihu  Burritt  ought  to 
have  chiefest  place  there  for  his  contribution  to  learning  made 
from  Connecticut. 

And  who  was  he  ?  A  blacksmith  ;  a  blacksmith  who  did  his 
work  at  the  forge  as  a  true  man  does  his  work,  and  who  in  that 
work  forged  out  links  of  brotherhood  to  bind  the  nations  into 
one.  Nor  can  you  tell  me  that  he  was  but  an  exception,  that 
he  was  but  one  appearing  from  the  hosts  of  workingmen  to 
advocate  the  cause  of  peace.  If  one  comes  into  the  generation 
that  is  now  on  the  stage,  and  looks  into  England,  one  finds 
there  Cremer,  a  stone  cutter,  who  came  to  be  a  member  of 
Parliament  and  to  be  the  founder  of  the  Interparliamentary 
Union,  a  leader  in  the  cause  of  international  peace,  than  whom 
England  has  contributed  no  abler,  more  effective  man  in  all 
the  three  generations  since  the  peace  movement  as  such  had 
its  birth.  This  man  represented  his  fellow  toilers.  Ministers, 
lawyers,  teachers,  jurists,  publicists  were  proud  to  be  associated 
with  him  and  under  his  leadership  in  the  modern  movement  for 
peace  in  England.  Surely  the  workingman  has  been  in  it  from 
the  beginning,  and  surely  if  it  ever  succeeds  the  workingman 
will  be  in  it  when  victory  crowns  its  brow,  for  without  the 
fellowship  of  all  those  who  work,  as  of  all  those  who  love,  no 
great  achievement  for  humanity,  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
among  men,  has  ever  been  or  ever  will  be  consummated. 

So,  in  behalf  of  the  Executive  Committee,  it  is  not  my  duty 
to  welcome  any  representative  of  any  labor  organization  here, 
to  welcome  any  laboring  man  here  ;  it  is  rather  that  we  greet 
each  other  on  a  common  plane  and  recognize  our  common 
interests  in  this  great  cause,  the  cause  of  international  peace  — 
a  word  so  great  that  it  links  all  our  hearts  together  and  unites 
us  in  fervent  prayer  that  it  may  speedily  be  achieved. 

Dr.  Potter  introduced  Mr.  Charles  J.  Donahue,  President  of 
the  Connecticut  Federation  of  Labor.  Mr.  Donahue  endorsed 
an  opinion  lately  expressed  by  Eton.  John  W.  Foster,  that  the 
time  had  come  when  the  workingmen  of  one  country  will  refuse 
to  shoot  their  brother  workingmen  of  another  country  at  the 
behest  of  rulers.  Labor  organizations,  he  said,  had  learned  from 
experience  that  they  can  win  their  battles  better  through  chan¬ 
nels  of  peace  than  by  strikes  or  conflicts.  They  believe  in 
arbitration,  in  the  industrial  as  well  as  in  the  international  life. 

Mr.  Donahue  presented  John  Brown  Lennon,  Treasurer  of 


3 


the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Mr.  Lennon  said  in 
substance  : 

LABOR'S  INTEREST  IN  WORLD  PEACE. 

John  Brown  Lennon,  Treasurer  of  the  American  Fed¬ 
eration  of  Labor. 

Nineteen  hundred  years  ago  the  great  Apostle  of  peace  on 
earth  and  goodwill  among  men  appeared  and  gave  humanity 
the  law  of  love,  to  supplant  the  old  law  of  “  an  eye  for  an  eye 
and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.”  As  we  now  read  and  comprehend  the 
spirit  of  the  teachings  of  the  Carpenter  of  Nazareth,  we  are 
filled  with  astonishment  that  to-day  we  must  still  cry  out  for 
peace  and  still  there  is  no  peace,  and  all  the  Christian  nations 
of  the  world  turn  countless  treasures  into  preparation  for  war 
and  train  millions  of  citizens  to  fight  and  kill  each  other. 

A  meeting  such  as  this  and  others  that  have  been  held  is  a 
force  to  which  governments  must  pay  attention.  This  is  a 
peaceful  way  to  secure  peace,  and  therefore  the  more  likely  of 
early  success.  The  world  is  not  entirely  ruled  by  force.  Rea¬ 
son  and  right  are  each  year  becoming  more  and  more  a  factor 
in  the  determination  of  the  policies  of  men  and  nations.  The 
value  to  progress  in  declaring  for  a  thing  cannot  be  computed 
as  to  its  effects  in  securing  the  objects  desired.  All  history 
justifies  our  agitation  and  we  may  live  to  see  its  full  fruition. 
Do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  Hague  Tribunal  is  in  exist¬ 
ence,  and  as  the  opposition  to  war  grows  the  people  will  turn 
toward  this  or  some  other  court  for  settlement  of  international 
differences,  and  with  a  few  verdicts  rendered  which  are  right 
assurance  will  be  established  that  justice  may  be  secured  with¬ 
out  resort  to  arms. 

There  are  nearly  five  millions  of  men  in  the  armies  and 
navies  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  What  an  army  of  non¬ 
producers  to  be  clothed,  fed  and  equipped  by  those  engaged  in 
gainful  occupations  !  What  reason  that  is  worth  while  can  be 
given  for  such  a  tremendous  waste  ?  Why  should  those  who 
toil  be  encumbered  with  this  awful  burden  ?  The  pathway  of 
life  of  the  wage  worker  is  by  no  means  all  pleasure  when  he 
has  only  his  own  burdens  to  bear ;  but  add  to  it  that  all  the 
drones  and  non-producers  have  to  be  cared  for  out  of  the  prod¬ 
ucts  of  his  toil,  then  the  burden  becomes  unbearable,  and  we  cry 
out  in  all  countries  for  a  lessening  of  the  load  ;  and  in  the  name 
of  America’s  toiling  millions,  I  appeal  for  an  abatement  of  war 


4 


and  military  waste  and  expenditure.  We  do  not  need  military 
schools  in  nearly  every  State  of  our  Union  ;  but  we  do  need 
more  teaching  of  reverence  for  God  and  love  for  our  fellowmen. 
We  have  a  right  to  expect  that  every  teacher,  preacher,  priest, 
—  yes,  every  lover  of  humanity,  of  democracy,  of  the  square 
deal,  of  substantial  religion, —  shall  become  an  apostle  of  peace 
and  preach  the  gospel  of  peace  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
Train  our  young  men  in  the  arts  of  war,  and  they  want  to  prac¬ 
tise  what  they  have  learned.  Increase  the  army  and  navy,  and 
what  can  we  hope  for  except  that  opportunity  will  be  made  for 
their  use  ? 

Shall  human  labor  not  be  of  too  great  value  to  be  forever 
turned  to  the  production  of  implements  of  destruction,  the  first 
of  whose  victims  are  those  whose  sweat  and  labor  turn  out  the 
ships  and  guns  ?  The  workers  on  the  farm,  in  the  mine,  the 
mill  and  the  shop,  in  all  wars  not  only  prepare  the  missiles  of 
death,  but  must  furnish  their  own  bodies  as  the  targets  at 
which  they  are  to  be  fired.  Their  labor  is  the  prime  factor  in 
all  production,  consequently  this  unnecessary  burden  is  placed 
on  their  backs.  But,  thanks  to  those  who  have  the  courage  to 
protest,  the  workers  are  coming  to  a  realization  of  the  fact  that 
the  toilers  of  one  nation  are  not  the  natural  enemies  of  those 
of  a  different  nation.  The  beautiful  flowing  Rhine  should  not 
and  will  not  much  longer  be  a  dead  line  so  that  the  workers  on 
one  side  believe  they  are  the  mortal  foes  of  their  fellows  on  the 
other  side. 

If  men  can  settle  their  individual  differences  without  resort 
to  bloodshed,  why,  we  ask,  cannot  nations  do  so  with  equal 
facility  ?  The  organized  labor  movement  of  the  world  is  on 
record  without  any  equivocation  for  international  peace  and  the 
settlement  of  differences  between  nations  by  arbitration  in  all 
cases  where  the  existence  of  the  nation  is  not  at  issue. 

War  recognizes  neither  the  fatherhood  of  God  nor  the 
brotherhood  of  man.  And  the  full  realization  of  the  Christian 
virtues  of  brotherly  love,  service  and  truth,  can  only  come  when 
the  war  drum  and  fife  shall  cease  forever  their  call  to  arms. 
Will  heroic  action  cease  when  wars  shall  come  to  an  end  ? 
Call  to  your  minds  the  heroism  of  the  toilers,  when  occasion 
requires,  on  land  and  sea,  —  in  the  factory,  in  the  mine,  the  mill 
and  the  shop  ;  the  engineer  who  holds  the  throttle  to  save  his 
passengers  at  the  sacrifice  of  his  own  life  ;  the  miner  who  goes 
into  the  bowels  of  the  earth  to  save  his  fellow-workmen. 

I  speak  for  labor  as  I  see  the  situation.  When  war  fills  the 


5 


people’s  minds,  the  nobler  aspirations  of  manhood  are  relegated 
to  a  back  seat.  When  peace  prevails,  the  toilers  think,  they 
organize  the  great  armies  of  peace,  and  gain  victories  for  higher 
wages,  a  shorter  workday,  and  governmental  reforms  conducive 
to  human  happiness  and  uplift.  In  times  of  peace,  the  stan¬ 
dard  of  living  is  gradually  elevated.  The  waste  of  war  of 
necessity  depresses  the  standard  of  living,  and  the  workers 
therefore  have  only  loss  to  look  for  in  war ;  and  in  peace  they 
have  reason  to  hope  for  the  emancipation  of  labor  from  the 
unjust  burdens  they  now  bear,  many  of  which  were  brought 
upon  them  by  wars  in  which  they  had  no  interest. 

This  great  continent  of  ours  was  by  Providence  preserved 
from  discovery  until  the  human  race  in  the  old  countries  of 
the  world  had  passed  from  the  days  of  childhood,  and  the  first 
dawn  of  intellectual  manhood  was  filling  the  minds  of  men. 
Was  this  for  naught,  or  was  it  to  make  our  opportunity  the 
greatest  that  has  ever  come  to  a  nation  ?  Have  we  not  a  right 
to  ask  and  to  expect  that  our  nation  will  lead,  not  only  in  prom¬ 
ulgating  the  theories  of  universal  peace,  but  as  well  be  the 
great  example  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  in  at  least  ceasing 
to  increase  our  fighting  equipment  ?  We  need  more  and  better 
schools  much  more  than  we  do  more  Dreadnaughts.  Our 
people  need  better  homes  and  better  clothing  more  than  they 
do  a  greater  army.  The  toilers  are  seeing  the  light  on  this 
great  question,  and  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  those  who 
make  the  wars  will  have  to  do  their  own  fighting.  The  workers 
will  not  do  it  for  them  as  soon  as  they  have  a  full  realization 
that  they  have  at  stake  their  lives,  their  happiness  and  their 
future,  which  wars  destroy  and  peace  promotes. 

America  can  well  afford  to  lead  in  any  movement  to  bring 
about  world  peace  and  general  reduction  of  military  establish¬ 
ments.  The  people’s  influence  should  be  exerted  to  have  our 
nation  enter  upon  arbitration  treaties  with  the  nations  of  the 
world.  Some  one  must  step  out  boldly.  The  United  States 
should  be  the  pioneer.  Both  God  and  man  will  bless  the 
nation  that  first  stands  absolutely  for  universal  peace. 

Since  the  dawn  of  human  history  men  have  struggled  for 
an  existence.  War,  with  its  ideals  of  glory,  chivalry  and  con¬ 
quest,  has  sometimes  moved  men  to  great  and  substantial 
progress.  If  we  are  to  be  justified  in  our  efforts  to  eliminate 
the  war  spirit  and  ideals,  we  must  teach  the  people  that  the 
victories  of  love,  of  forbearance,  of  mutual  helpfulness  are 
more  ennobling,  are  more  enduring,  than  are  those  of  war. 


6 


The  men  that  best  serve  humanity  in  science,  in  art,  in  indus¬ 
try  and  all  the  avenues  of  a  useful  life,  must  be  lifted  up  as 
the  world’s  real  heroes.  Our  failure  to  stop  war  is  because 
only  a  few  have  lost  the  glamour  of  the  so-called  glory  of 
killing  or  being  killed. 

The  workers  demand  not  only  the  cessation  of  war,  but  a 
stoppage  of  the  terrible  cost  of  our  present  method  of  main¬ 
taining  an  armed  peace.  They  demand  that  peace  be  maintained 
by  being  honest  with  ourselves,  just  to  our  neighbors,  and  not 
by  great  armaments  that  cannot  permanently  maintain  peace. 
A  settlement  by  war  is  temporary  ;  a  settlement  by  peaceful 
methods  is  permanent  and  of  lasting  benefit  to  all  concerned. 

If  men  need  stimulus  for  brave  deeds  similar  to  that  which 
war  has  brought  to  them,  they  can  turn  their  energies,  their 
aspirations  and  their  chivalry  to  the  uplift  of  women  and  chil¬ 
dren  forced  into  industrial  life  because  of  political,  religious 
and  industrial  injustice,  that  still  is  so  largely  dominating  the 
lives  of  the  world’s  workers.  Here  is  a  field  of  activity  that 
gives  ample  scope  for  the  development  of  men  to  a  much 
higher  sphere  of  real  usefulness  than  has  ever  been  true  of  war. 
The  workers  see  the  light  better  and  are  not  so  easily  hood¬ 
winked  now  as  in  former  ages,  because  organized  labor  has  in¬ 
creased  wages,  reduced  the  hours  of  labor,  given  opportunity 
to  read  and  opportunity  to  think ;  and  from  our  thought  is 
generally  developing  the  determination  that  all  men  are  brothers 
and  that  we  will  not  be  used  to  kill  each  other.  When  the 
full  light  of  this  new  day  shall  come  to  the  workers  of  the 
world  war  will  cease,  because  there  will  be  none  to  do  the  fight¬ 
ing.  There  are  still  sacrifices  to  be  made,  still  burdens  to  be 
borne  in  lifting  humanity  to  higher  planes  of  living  ;  and,  thanks 
be  to  God  and  to  humanity,  we  shall,  we  trust,  soon  throw  off 
forever  this  Old  Man-of-the-Sea,  War,  with  all  its  bigotry,  rob¬ 
bery,  ignorance  and  destruction.  Disarmament  is  not  now 
practical,  but  let  us  work  and  hope  for  the  time  when  no  fur¬ 
ther  additions  will  be  made  to  the  armies  and  navies  now  in 
existence.  They  would  soon  in  effectiveness  become  obsolete, 
and  universal  peace  would  be  near  at  hand.  To  continue  to 
train  men  in  the  arts  of  war,  to  add  to  armies  and  navies  and 
still  expect  to  advance  the  cause  of  peace,  is  a  travesty  and  a 
farce. 

Commercialism  has  been  given  as  the  cause,  direct  or  indirect, 
of  most  wars.  Greed  and  selfishness,  the  outgrowth  of  the 
desire  for  gold,  drive  men  and  nations  where  neither  angels  nor 


7 


devils  would  dare  to  tread.  If,  then,  we  would  stop  war,  we 
must  help  to  remove  the  injustices  of  industrial  life,  and  judge 
not  the  success  of  men  by  the  amount  of  their  wealth,  but  by 
the  amount  of  their  helpfulness  to  each  other. 

Peace  among  nations  is  largely  dependent  upon  peace  within 
nations.  Where  the  great  body  of  workers  are  largely  re¬ 
stricted  in  the  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness,  that  spirit  of  goodwill  and  fellowship, 
that  really  makes  the  national  characteristics,  does  not  and  can¬ 
not  grow  as  it  should.  It  becomes,  therefore,  the  duty  of  men 
and  women  who  love  peace  to  work  for  that  which  leads  to 
peace  at  home,  in  their  own  neighborhood,  in  the  factories,  the 
mills  and  mines,  where  labor  is  employed.  Help  make  for 
these  conditions  where  a  substantial  home  life  is  possible, 
where  recreation  is  within  reach  of  all,  where  the  pursuit  of 
happiness  will  not  be  in  vain,  and  we  will  develop  a  nation 
where,  loving  their  own  homes,  the  people  will  be  loth  to  go 
out  and  destroy  the  homes  of  others.  Where  manhood  and 
womanhood  have  opportunity  to  blossom  and  flower,  they  will 
have  no  desire  to  forget  the  paths  of  virtue  and  pursue  those 
of  destruction.  When  industrial  conditions  are  such  that  man 
can  secure  a  proper  standard  of  living  by  reasonable  labor,  the 
spirit  of  covetousness,  that  underlies  war,  will  die,  and  wars 
will  be  at  an  end.  The  reign  of  the  plow  shall  replace  the 
reign  of  the  sword,  and  peace  on  earth  and  goodwill  among 
men  shall  be  the  slogan  of  the  human  race.  May  we  not  ex¬ 
pect  soon  to  know  that  the  war  drums  have  ceased  to  beat,  and 
that  Brotherhood  which  Burns  so  beautifully  depicted  shall  be 
realized  : 

“  For  a’  that,  and  a’  that, 

It ’s  cornin’  yet,  for  a’  that, 

That  man  to  man,  the  warld  o’er, 

Shall  brothers  be  for  a’  that.” 

Dr.  Potter  then  introduced  Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals  as  a  fellow 
member  of  his  own  union,  that  of  the  preachers. 

THE  WORKMAN  AND  THE  GUN  MAN* 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals  of  Chicago,  Field  Secretary 
of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

The  peace  and  labor  movements  have  so  much  in  common 
that  the  peace  worker,  even  though  not  a  trade-unionist  and 
perhaps  not  accepting  the  full  program  of  unionism,  looks  upon 
organized  labor  as  an  out  and  out  ally  of  pacifism. 


8 


From  the  first  congress  of  the  modern  series  of  universal 
peace  congresses,  held  in  Paris  in  1889,  down  to  the  present, 
invitations  to  be  represented  in  the  peace  gatherings  have  been 
sent  to  labor  organizations.  That  is,  labor  organizations  are 
classed  coordinately  with  peace  societies  and  their  cooperation 
is  sought.  Moreover,  generous  space  on  the  programs  of  peace 
congresses  is  given  to  the  subject  of  labor. 

To  marshal  all  the  resolutions  and  declarations  of  organized 
workmen  relative  to  gun  philosophy  would  be  to  compile  a 
voluminous  document.  Charles  Sumner,  even  in  his  day,  made 
an  imposing  array  of  such  declarations.  Mr.  Gompers,  at  the 
Chicago  Peace  Congress,  stated  that  over  a  hundred  years  ago 
one  of  the  first  labor  unions  petitioned  Congress  in  behalf  of 
international  peace.  The  Knights  of  Labor  likewise  declared 
for  peace.  And  when  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was 
organized  at  Pittsburg  in  1881,  like  its  predecessor,  it  com¬ 
mitted  itself  to  the  ways  of  peace.  In  1887,  in  its  convention 
at  Baltimore,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  adopted  strong 
resolutions  in  favor  of  international  peace  and  these  resolutions 
were  readopted  at  the  labor  mass  meeting  in  Boston,  held  in 
connection  with  the  peace  congress.  Equally  unequivocal  were 
the  resolutions  introduced  by  James  Duncan  at  the  Minne¬ 
apolis  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  June 
15,  1906,  and  adopted  by  that  body. 

The  peace  record  of  organized  labor  is  a  noble  one.  It  was 
a  stone-cutter,  William  Randal  Cremer,  who,  in  1870,  organized 
the  Workmen’s  Peace  Association,  which  is  now  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Arbitration  League.  And  he  it  was  who  conceived  and 
founded  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  one  of  the  greatest 
peacemaking  forces  in  the  world. 

The  modern  workman  may  well  be  proud  of  the  part  his 
fellows  have  played  in  international  crises.  At  the  outbreak 
of  the  Franco-Prussian  War  a  group  of  French  workmen  sent 
an  address  to  their  German  comrades  and  the  German  Inter¬ 
national  Association  replied  in  a  similar  kindly  spirit.  When 
the  Venezuela  matter  was  pending  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  and  war  appeared  imminent,  labor  organiza¬ 
tions  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  lifted  up  their  voice  in 
earnest  protest  against  any  resort  to  arms.  When  Norway  and 
Sweden  separated  and  disagreements  became  so  bitter  that 
“the  purple  testament  of  bleeding  war  ”  seemed  about  to  be 
opened,  the  labor  organizations  of  both  countries  sent  telegrams 
to  their  respective  rulers  that  they  would  refuse  to  take  up 


9 


arms  —  and  there  was  no  war.  It  is  a  historic  fact  that  the 
Socialists  and  the  peace  societies  took  action,  independently, 
however,  in  France  to  avert  a  war  which  the  Morocco  question 
threatened  to  precipitate.  Labor  in  one  form  or  another  is 
now  so  well  organized  that  it  has  to  be  reckoned  with,  and, 
thank  God,  its  mighty  influence  is  cast  on  the  side  of  inter¬ 
national  peace  and  human  progress. 

We  have  now  hurriedly  cited  a  few  data,  yet  they  are  enough 
to  convince  us,  in  a  general  way,  that  the  workman  is  a  peace 
man.  He  does  not  believe  in  gun  philosophy.  He  has  nothing 
but  contempt  for  the  gun  man.  Let  us  now  inquire  specifically 
into  a  few  of  the  reasons  for  his  attitude.  Why  is  he  so  bel¬ 
ligerent  a  pacifist  ?  Why  does  he  so  fiercely  fight  against 
fighting  ? 

First,  the  workman  stands  for  sound  economics.  Preem¬ 
inently  the  labor  movement  is  an  economic  one.  It  was  born 
out  of  economic  necessity  and  will  never  disappear  until  eco¬ 
nomic  justice  is  attained.  More  sharply  than  any  other  man, 
the  workman  differentiates  between  the  destructionists  and 
constructionists,  between  the  consumer  type  and  the  producer 
type.  The  workman  looks  upon  soldiers  as  “  mouths  without 
hands.” 

The  workman  preaches  that  labor  is  nobler  than  war,  that 
stove-pipes  and  drain-pipes  are  more  glorious  than  cannon,  that 
the  mortar  bedaubed  mason  or  greasy  engineer  is  more  worthy 
of  honor  than  the  befeathered  gun  man  strutting  around  in  the 
plumage  of  the  shorter  statured  chanticleer.  The  workman 
says  “Amen”  to  the  doctrine  of  Ruskin :  “Men  are  enlisted  for 
the  labor  that  kills  —  the  labor  of  war:  they  are  counted, 
trained,  fed,  dressed  and  praised  for  that.  Let  them  be  en¬ 
listed  also  for  the  labor  that  feeds  :  let  them  be  counted,  trained, 
fed,  dressed,  praised  for  that.  Teach  the  plough  exercise  as  care¬ 
fully  as  you  do  the  sword  exercise  and  let  the  officers  of  troops  of 
life  be  held  as  much  gentlemen  as  the  officers  of  troops  of  death.” 
This  is  the  increasingly  insistent  demand  of  the  workman,  that 
the  troops  of  life  shall  be  ranked  at  least  as  high  as  the  troops 
of  death.  The  mood  of  an  awakening  world  in  this  economic 
age  will  not  much  longer  tolerate  the  great  waste  of  the  world’s 
resources  through  the  wasteful  gun  policy  which  now  prevails. 
Workmen,  and  all  other  sober  minded  men,  have  learned  to 
think  in  economic  terms.  Investments  which  yield  nothing 
but  loss  will  not  long  be  sanctioned. 

Another  reason  why  the  workman  is  an  anti-gun  man  is 


IO 


that  he  is  an  internationalist.  This  is  the  age  of  international 
evolution.  We  have  already  actually  entered  upon  the  first 
chapters  of  internationalism.  In  the  regularly  recurring  Hague 
Conferences  we  have  an  official,  international  parliament.  We 
have  an  international  court,  and  will  soon  have  a  better  one. 
Intergovernmental  enterprises,  like  the  Universal  Postal  Union, 
Red  Cross  and  a  dozen  others,  have  permanent  bureaus  and 
are  supported  by  the  civilized  governments  of  the  world. 
Learned  societies  by  the  score  have  their  international  organ¬ 
izations  and  hold  their  annual  international  meetings  now  in 
one  country  and  next  in  that.  If  a  financial  panic  prevails  in 
the  United  States,  the  Bank  of  England  and  financial  insti¬ 
tutions  in  Paris,  Berlin  and  Rome  are  shaken  to  their  very 
foundations. 

In  harmony  with  this  new  spirit  of  internationalism,  partly 
the  cause  of  it  and  partly  its  result,— the  welfare  of  labor  is 
one  throughout  the  world.  Regardless  of  political  and  geo¬ 
graphical  boundary  lines,  workmen  in  one  country  are  comrades 
of  the  workman  in  other  lands.  Just  as  capital  has  come  to  be 
a  cosmopolitan  commodity,  so  by  the  same  process  of  economic 
evolution  labor  has  become  international.  Not  less  than  thirty 
trades  are  organized  internationally.  Visitations  of  fraternal 
labor  delegates  between  nations  are  increasingly  common,  and 
old-time  division  lines  are  being  erased  and  animosities  are 

fading  away. 

Again,  the  workman  is  an  anti-gun  man  because  he  believes 
in  an  honest  attempt  to  do  straight  thinking.  Listen  to  these 
truly  wise  words  of  James  Duncan,  spoken  at  the  Boston  Peace 
Congress  in  1904  1  u  The  weapons  of  the  trade  union  movement, 
my  friends,  are  the  public  school  and  Webster’s  dictionary.  We 
want  no  guns  or  bayonets  in  our  movement ;  they  are  distaste¬ 
ful  to  us.”  The  only  authoritative  and  permanent  leadership 
is  the  ability  to  think  better  than  one’s  fellows. 

We  often  used  to  hear  the  criticism,  too  frequently  flippantly 
offered,  that  labor  was  poorly  led,  that  its  leaders  were  uned¬ 
ucated  men,  untrained  in  thinking,  and,  consequently,  costly 
blunders  were  made.  But  consider  !  Labor  had  to  create  its 
own  leaders.  The  churches  held  aloof.  The  college  trained 
men  belonged  to  the  privileged  class  whose  interest  it  was.  to 
keep  down  labor.  To  whom  could  labor  turn  for  leadership  ? 
To  none  but  itself.  And  so  out  from  its  own  ranks  it  called 
men,  and  slowly  and  by  marvelous  self-discipline  these  leaders 
were  evolved.  I  want  you  to  run  over  in  your  mind  the  names 


of  the  men  who  head  the  great  armies  of  organized  labor  to¬ 
day.  Honestly,  now,  in  intellectual  ability,  ethical  discernment 
and  moral  integrity  are  not  these  men  the  peers  of  our  con¬ 
gressmen,  for  example?  Tell  me,  would  not  the  affairs  of  a 
nation  be  at  least  as  safe  in  such  hands  as  in  the  hands  of  an 
emperor  like  Louis  Napoleon,  whose  wife,  the  Empress  Eugenie, 
said  of  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  “This  is  my  war”;  or  of  a 
president,  like  Polk,  who  embroiled  his  republic  in  an  unrighteous 
war  (the  Mexican)  in  order  to  further  his  darling  cause  of 
slavery ;  or  even  of  an  up-to-date  great  newspaper  king  who 
not  long  ago  boasted  that  it  was  his  paper  which  precipitated 
our  war  with  Spain  ?  For  myself,  I  feel  like  taking  off  my  hat 
to  the  workmen  when  they  can  produce  a  score  of  leaders  who 
might  be  mentioned.  These  men  think.  They  are  not  foolish. 
They  get  down  to  hard  facts.  They  are  willing  to  learn  even 
from  their  mistakes.  They  are  honestly  open-minded.  They 
don’t  “know  it  all,”  and  they  know  it.  And  the  God  of  human 
destiny  can  use  such  men. 

More  and  more  work  is  coming  to  be  looked  upon  as  social 
service.  And  for  this  conception,  which  redeems  and  ennobles 
toil,  we  are  indebted  to  no  one  so  much  as  to  the  leaders  of  or¬ 
ganized  labor.  It  was  the  Connecticut  born  workman,  Elihu 
Burritt,  who  called  the  peasantry  “blind  painters.”  Thanks 
to  the  patient  campaign  of  education  conducted  by  organized 
labor,  a  new  and  more  beautiful  picture  of  human  toil  and  jus¬ 
tice  is  being  painted.  But,  unlike  the  peasantry  of  Burritt’s 
generation,  the  present-day  painters  are  not  blind.  They  have 
their  eyes  wide  open.  Their  vision  is  undimmed.  They 
see  with  great  clearness  the  great  dominating  features  that 
must  be  sketched  in,  and  year  by  year  the  picture  approaches 
completion. 

Moreover,  the  workman  stands  for  democracy.  Kant  be¬ 
lieved  that  universal  peace  never  could  be  realized  until  the 
peoples  were  free.  Given  kings,  hedged  with  divinity,  and 
war  is  liable  to  break  out  any  moment  at  the  passion  or  caprice 
of  a  hot-headed  ruler.  Then  it  is  that  you  get  your  Dumb- 
drudge  battlefield,  as  pictured  by  Carlyle.  A  new  and  com¬ 
manding  voice  is  now  heard,  namely,  democracy.  The  world 
has  tried  imperialism,  feudalism,  paternalism,  aristocracy  and 
plutocracy,  until  there  is  nothing  left  to  try  but  democracy, 
and  now  we  are  trying  that.  Bismarck  preached  the  “will  to 
rule  ”  and  said  :  “We  must  give  the  king  the  greatest  possible 
power,  in  order  that,  in  case  of  need,  he  may  throw  all  the 


12 


blood  and  iron  into  the  scale.”  But  there  is  scarcely  a  country 
in  the  world  in  which  democracy  looms  larger  on  the  morning 
horizon  than  in  the  land  of  Bismarck.  To-day  we  are  coming 
more  and  more  to  rank  a  man  according  to  the  amount  of  ser¬ 
vice  he  renders  to  his  fellows.  In  place  of  the  gun  philosophy 
of  Bismarck,  we  are  inclining  towards  the  philosophy  of  anothei 
German,  Martin  Luther,  who  taught  that  a  man  should  be  a 
Christ  to  his  neighbor.  The  proudest  title  that  the  right- 
minded  man  of  to-day  can  covet  is  “  Servus  Servorum  Dei, 
servant  of  the  servants  of  God.  Men  in  every  land  are  ac¬ 
cepting  Mr.  Roosevelt’s  doctrine  of  “  All  up  together,”  and  are 
inscribing  on  their  banners  the  words  which  were  emblazoned 
on  an  ancient  flag  of  Poland,  “  For  our  liberty  and  yours. 

After  this  dissection  of  the  workman,  it  is  almost  needless 
to  add  that  the  workman  is  a  believer  in  moral  forces.  With 
Confucius  and  Abraham  Lincoln  and  all  truly  great  men,  the 
workman  holds  that  it  is  right  that  makes  might.  He  dares  to 
dissent  from  that  pernicious  toast  of  Stephen  Decatur,  “  My 
country,  right  or  wrong  !  ”  He  holds  that  loyalty  to  country 
in  an  unjust  cause  is  moral  treason.  Like  Francis  Lieber,  the 
modern  workman  is  deeply  impressed  with  Aristotle  s  words, 
“The  fellest  thing  in  the  world  is  armed  injustice.’ 

If  our  picture  of  the  workman,  as  we  know  him  to-day,  is 
correct,  then  we  must  conclude  that  he  is  a  very  different  breed 
from  the  gun  man.  By  the  gun  man  I  do  not  necessarily  mean 
the  soldier  or  sailor  in  actual  service.  I  mean  the  man,  whether 
soldier  or  civilian,  who  can  see  nothing  better  than  brute  force ; 
who  does  not  dare  trust  his  fellow  men,  but  believes  he  must 
at  all  times  be  ready  to  smite  and  smash ;  who  rates  the 
smiting  and  smashing  higher  than  justice  ;  who  cannot  see 
that  the  world  is  constantly  moving  on  to  better  and  higher 
ideas,  ideals,  customs  and  institutions  ;  who  contends  that  the 
best  way  to  promote  goodwill  is  to  shake  clenched  fists  or 
bristling  cannon  in  a  neighbor’s  face  ;  who  argues  that  the 
power  to  kill  human  beings  is  the  supreme  virtue  to  be 
striven  for. 

How  does  the  workingman  regard  the  gun  man  ?  The  work¬ 
man’s  estimate  of  war  and  war  philosophy,  the  war  system  and 
war  expenditures,  may  perhaps  be  summed  up  in  a  single  ejacu¬ 
lation  of  a  German  soldier  in  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  “  I  wish 
that  the  accursed  swindle  were  over !  ” 

Consider.  Let  us  apply  the  same  tests  to  the  gun  man  that 
we  have  applied  to  the  workman.  Is  the  gun  man  in  harmony 


13 


with  the  best  thinking  of  our  day  ?  Is  he  economically  sound, 
democratic,  a  believer  in  education,  international  in  sympathy 
and  a  moralist  to  the  core  ? 

As  viewed  by  the  workman,  the  most  exhausting  parasite 
on  world-life  to-day  is  the  gun  man.  In  all  lands  the  people’s 
money  is  diained  away  from  conserving  and  health-promoting 
and  business-developing  enterprises  for  the  purchase  of  twelve- 
million-dollar  battleships  which  in  ten  years  have  to  be  “  osler- 
ized.  We  cannot  properly  equip  our  educational  institutions, 
01  house  and  feed  and  clothe  the  families  of  those  who  are 
doing  the  world  s  work,  because  the  money  must  go  for  guns 
and  ships.  No  wonder  that,  to  the  worker  who  is  wearing  his 
life  away  in  productive  toil,  the  gun  man  appears  the  arch-faker 
of  the  twentieth  century.  As  the  workman  sees  things,  the 
gun  man  is  playing  the  flimflam  game  to-day  as  few  others  ever 
played  it  or  ever  can  play  it.  And  the  back-broken,  patient 

workman  cries  out,  “  I  wish  that  the  accursed  swindle  were 
over !  ” 

Secondly,  the  workman  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  gun  man 
is  out  of  sympathy  with  democracy.  Sometimes  the  gun  man 
is  a  soldier  who  believes  in  a  privileged  class,  with  himself  as 
the  privileged.  Our  teachers,  ministers,  engineers,  house¬ 
builders  and  miners  go  unpensioned,  while  the  man-killer  is 
pensioned.  Or  it  may  be  that  the  gun  man  is  some  well-to-do 
civilian  who  believes,  as  a  New  England  business  man  once  said 
to  me,  that  “  we  need  soldiers  to  shoot  down  socialists,  who  are 
all  the  time  becoming  more  numerous.”  Such  a  man  not  infre¬ 
quently  believes  in  committing  all  public  affairs  to  one  man 
who  shall  do  all  the  thinking  for  the  nation,  and  whose  word 
shall  be  supreme  and  final.  Is  this  democracy  ?  Call  it  rather 
treason,  treason  to  our  republican  institutions  and  treason  to 
the  cause  of  human  liberty.  The  whole  genius  of  gunism  is 
aristociacy  and  absolutism.  We  have  had  enough  of  these, 
God  knows  !  And  in  this  day,  when  the  whole  civilized  world 
is  toilfully  climbing  up  out  of  the  mire  of  exploitation  and 
inequality,  a  man  who  preaches  the  message  of  absolutism,  or 
even  benevolent  feudalism,  is  a  back  number  in  human  evolution. 

The  workman  impeaches  the  gun  man,  once  more,  in  the 
name  of  intelligence  and  education,  charging  that  he  is  not  a 
thinker,  but  a  blind  smiter  and  destroyer.  To  be  sure  the  gun 
man  uses  his  wits  to  devise  new  machines  and  methods  for 
human  butchery.  Not  an  invention  or  discovery  is  made  but 
is  applied  to  war.  Nobel,  the  discoverer  of  dynamite,  almost 


14 


broken-hearted  because  gun  men  used  his  discovery  to  destroy, 
founded  the  Nobel  Peace  Prize,  to  undo  in  a  measure  some  of 
the  harm  he  unwittingly  had  done.  The  one  aspect  of  air 
navigation  that  overshadows  all  others  is  the  effect  of  airships 
on  warfare.  Is  n't  it  wicked  to  prostitute  high  thinking  to  the 
ignoble  art  of  group  murder  ? 

We  cannot  wonder  that  the  workman  feels  that  the  gun  man 
is  not  an  honest  thinker.  A  man  who  believes  in  firing  first 
and  investigating  afterwards  can  hardly  be  classed  as  an  educa¬ 
tional  force.  In  an  age  of  judicial  procedure  the  gun  man  is 
an  educational  fossil,  or,  worse,  he  is  a  bluffer,  a  faker.  And 
it  is  not  the  workman  alone  who  sighs,  “  I  wish  that  the 
accursed  swindle  were  over!”  Shotgun  justice  and  shotgun 
diplomacy  are  out  of  place  to-day.  Open-minded,  constructive, 
straight  thinking  is  coming  to  its  own,  and  in  this  day  of  edu¬ 
cation  Mr.  Powder  Devilkin,  the  champion  quack  and  bunco- 
man  of  this  generation,  must  make  way  for  the  teacher  and 
the  judge. 

We  said  that  internationalism  was  characteristic  of  our  times 
and  that  the  workman  was  an  internationalist.  Is  the  gun  man 
an  internationalist  ?  Not  for  one  moment.  While  learned 
societies,  reformers,  educators,  workmen,  and  even  govern¬ 
ments,  are  more  and  more  coming  to  act  internationally,  the 
gun  man  is  the  one  anti-internationalist  in  all  the  civilized 
world  at  this  moment.  Scientists,  philosophers,  reformers, 
educators,  churchmen  and  workmen  meet  together  as  co¬ 
workers,  form  genuine  friendships  with  men  of  their  own  class, 
and  think  of  each  other  as  brother  toilers  in  a  common  holy 
cause. 

The  one  man  who  is  out  of  joint  with  all  this  spirit  of  com¬ 
radeship  is  the  gun  man.  The  gun  man  is  not  loyal  to  his  own 
class.  Instead  of  looking  upon  men  of  his  own  profession  in 
other  countries  as  benefactors  to  humankind,  he  shrieks  that 
they  are  a  menace  to  his  own  land  :  “  More  ships,  more  money, 
more  guns,  quick  !  ”  Now  the  gun  man  s  words  are  either  true 
or  untrue.  If  true,  then  the  soldier  profession  is  the  one  pro¬ 
fession  that  cannot  reconcile  itself  to  the  evolution  of  inter¬ 
nationalism,  and  is  therefore  an  obstacle  to  human  progress. 
If  untrue,  if  the  gun  man  is  simply  hatching  up  bogey-men  to 
secure  increased  naval  appropriations  year  after  year,  then  it  is 
time  that  the  people  understand  this.  In  either  case,  whether 
the  gun  man  is  telling  the  truth  or  slandering  men  of  his  own 
kind,  the  workman  looks  upon  the  fighter  as  a  faker,  a  sharper 


i5 


who  lives  by  his  wits  and  the  stupidity  of  the  public.  And  he 
wonders  how  long  such  an  “accursed  swindle  ”  can  continue. 

Is  the  gun  man  a  moralist  ?  Does  he  unfalteringly  believe 
in  the  invincibility  of  goodness  ?  Does  he  make  it  easier  for 
moral  goodness  to  come  to  be  the  supreme  standard  in  the 
world  ?  Does  the  gun  man  believe  that  the  rights  of  a  weak 
nation  are  as  sacred  as  those  of  a  sixteen-Dreadnaught  power  ? 
Does  he  believe  that  justice  is  for  the  feeble  and  defenseless 
as  much  as  for  those  who  are  able  to  take  by  brute  force  what 
they  covet  ?  In  a  word,  does  he  want  to  help  the  world 
onward  or  hold  it  back  ?  If  the  gun  man  cannot  stand  this 
moral  test,  he  deserves  the  indignation  of  the  workman. 

In  closing,  I  venture  the  prediction  that  civilization,  in  its 
splendid  new  vision  of  economy,  democracy,  education,  inter¬ 
nationalism  and  morality,  is  soon  to  arise  and  cast  out  the  gun 
man,  bag  and  baggage,  philosophy,  paraphernalia  and  appropri¬ 
ations.  And  in  his  place  shall  be  installed  the  one  who  has  so 
long  been  defrauded  of  his  due,  the  workman,  the  soldier  of 
peace.  Farewell,  gun  man,  long,  too  long,  have  you  tarried  : 
but  now  farewell,  an  eternal  farewell !  And  welcome,  workman, 
welcome  to  your  well-won  heritage  ! 

CONSECRATION  SERVICE. 

Parson's  Theatre,  Sunday  Evening,  May  8,  J9J0. 

Right  Rev.  Chauncey  B.  Brewster,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 

Connecticut,  Presiding. 

A  consecration  service,  held  in  Parson’s  Theatre,  was  at¬ 
tended  by  about  five  hundred  persons,  who  came,  in  spite  of  a 
drenching  rain.  Officers  and  committees  of  the  Congress,  the 
speakers  and  the  Girls’  Glee  Club  of  the  Hartford  High  School 
occupied  the  stage.  Right  Rev.  Chauncey  B.  Brewster,  Bishop 
of  Connecticut,  presided.  Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Dr. 
John  Coleman  Adams.  The  Glee  Club  sang  the  Twenty-third 
Psalm,  Mendelssohn’s  “  Lift  Thine  Eyes,”  from  “  Elijah,”  and 
“List  the  Cherubic  Host”  from  “The  Holy  City.”  The 
meeting  closed  with  the  singing  of  “America.” 

Bishop  Brewster,  in  his  introductory  remarks,  recognized  the 
necessity  of  demonstrating  that  peace  is  consistent  with  patriot¬ 
ism,  courage  and  righteousness.  The  business  of  the  friends 
of  peace  was  to  enlighten  the  public  as  to  this  truth.  He 
believed,  however,  that  arbitration  was  steadily  advancing,  as 


shown  by  the  recent  treaties  of  arbitration  and  by  the  sub¬ 
mission  of  the  Fisheries  dispute.  Bishop  Brewster  then  in¬ 
troduced  Rev.  Dr.  G.  Glenn  Atkins  of  Providence,  who,  after 
some  prefatory  remarks,  said  : 

THE  CAUSES  OF  WAR  AND  THE  BASES  OF  PEACE* 

Rev.  G.  Glenn  Atkins,  D.  D.,  Providence,  R.  I. 

Is  it  possible  to  discover  any  great  controlling  principles  by 
which  being  guided  we  may  come  towards  an  international 
temper  which  shall  be  increasingly  pacific  ?  Yes,  I  think  it  is, 
and  we  shall  find  these  principles  by  trying  to  find  out  what 
have  been  in  the  past  the  most  fertile  causes  of  war.  If  we 
can  discover  and  avoid  those  causes  in  the  future  we  shall 
certainly  go  a  long  way  towards  avoiding  war  itself. 

One  of  the  most  constant  and  least  justifiable  causes  of  war 
has  been  religious  intolerance.  From  the  time  of  the  Crusades 
until  the  Peace  of  Ryswick  there  was  no  great  length  of  time 
when  Europe  was  not  experiencing  some  sort  of  religious  war, 
either  a  war  between  Mohammedans  and  Christians  or  wars 
which  had  their  origin  in  the  conflict  between  the  Latin  Cath¬ 
olic  and  the  Reformed  churches.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
say  how  much  all  this  has  cost  in  blood  and  force,  and  at  the 
same  time  how  futile  and  unnecessary  much  of  it  has  been. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  were  not  immense  and  un¬ 
speakable  gains  in  the  Christian  repulsion  of  Mohammedan 
invasion,  or,  indeed,  in  the  defense  of  the  freer  faith  which  is 
so  dear  to  many  of  us  ;  but  I  do  mean  to  say  that  much  in  all 
this  was  foolish,  unnecessary,  and  wholly  hostile  to  the  cause 
of  Christ  in  whose  name  it  was  ostensibly  waged.  It  is  more 
than  likely  that  any  such  wars  as  these  will  in  the  future  be 
impossible.  We  have  come  to  see  that  the  very  things  which 
we  seek  in  the  establishment  and  enlargement  of  our  own  most 
cherished  beliefs  are  best  served  by  tolerance.  Error  must  be 
corrected  by  weapons  more  finely  tempered  than  the  weapons 
Of  blood  and  force.  Darkness  can  only  be  conquered  by  light, 
and  falsehood  by  truth.  A  noble  tolerance  in  the  field  of  con¬ 
flicting  religious  beliefs  is  one  of  the  great  safeguards  of  peace. 
As  far  as  we  have  secured  it,  we  ought  to  be  grateful,  and  we 
ought  to  be  increasingly  determined  to  secure  as  a  safeguard 
its  further  extension. 

A  second  great  cause  of  war  has  been  the  ambition  and  per¬ 
sonal  aggrandizement  of  men  who  by  force  or  genius  have  found 


i7 


themselves  at  the  heads  of  armies  and  leaders  in  militant  states. 
What  far-reaching  strife  has  centered  around  the  Tiglath- 
pilesers,  the  Alexanders,  the  Caesars  and  the  Napoleons  of 
history !  It  is,  of  course,  quite  impossible  to  disentangle  forces 
so  complex  ;  in  almost  every  one  of  these  cases  there  is  some¬ 
thing  besides  personal  aggrandizement  which  has  to  be  counted 
in,  and  in  almost  every  case  something  of  real  service  to  civili¬ 
zation  was  secured  ;  yet,  when  one  admits  all  this,  it  still  remains 
that  the  great  military  leaders  have  made  humanity  pay  a  fear¬ 
ful  price  for  their  uncurbed  ambition,  and  that  they  themselves 
have  in  the  end  come  down  to  tombs  which  are  but  the  pathetic 
witnesses  that  no  one  man  is  big  enough  to  readjust  history, 
even  though  he  rides  through  blood  and  fire  in  his  endeavor  to 
do  it.  The  more  such  leadership  is  made  impossible,  the  more 
individual  caprice  is  curbed  and  made  subservient  to  the  com¬ 
mon  well-being,  the  more  dictatorship  becomes  an  idle  dream, 
and  the  less  frequently  the  loyalty  of  the  people  yields  itself  to 
capricious  leaders,  —  the  more  certain  we  are  to  have  enduring 
peace.  There  is  every  likelihood  that  we  shall  see  less  and  less 
frequently  the  emergence  of  such  personalities,  but  it  is  not 
impossible.  The  nations,  remembering  the  past,  will  do  well 
to  yield  themselves  grudgingly  to  any  one  man,  and  to  be  slow 
in  finding  their  sole  salvation  in  any  one  personality.  Democ¬ 
racies  tend  to  peace.  Our  own  democracy  has  had  wars  a 
plenty,  but  the  diffusion  of  authority  and  the  making  of  war 
and  peace  by  those  who  really  have  to  fight  the  battles  and 
pay  the  cost  will  operate  more  and  more  constantly  in  favor  of 
peace. 

The  next  fruitful  cause  of  war  is  related  to  the  last.  It  has 
been  the  aggrandizement  of  families  and  dynasties.  From  the 
time  of  Charles  V.  until  the  French  Revolution  this  was,  per¬ 
haps,  after  the  wars  of  the  Reformation,  the  most  frequent 
cause  of  the  most  bitter  and  sterile  war.  Nowhere,  I  think, 
have  the  nations  been  called  upon  so  constantly  to  pay  so  great 
a  price.  Nowhere,  I  think,  have  the  returns  of  any  sort  of  tan¬ 
gible  gain  been  so  absolutely  negligible.  One  has  only  to 
follow  the  long  story  of  the  wars  between  the  Bourbons  and  the 
Spanish  and  the  Austrian  House  of  Hapsburg  to  see  how 
much  all  this  has  cost  Europe,  and  how  bitterly  fruitless  it  has 
all  been.  Here  again  is  a  diminishing  cause  of  possible  war. 
Kings  are  being  more  and  more  merged  with  their  peoples, 
and  the  service  of  the  dynasty  is  the  service  of  the  state. 
Here,  as  before,  the  increase  of  democracy,  the  widening 


1 8 


responsibility  and  the  reseating  of  authority  is  constantly 
making  for  peace. 

Another  cause  of  war  related  in  some  ways  to  the  last  has 
been  the  ambition  of  nations  to  override  their  neighbors,  to 
disregard  the  rights  of  national  inheritance,  and  the  sanctity 
of  nationalities.  This  movement  in  European  history  began 
with  Charles  V.  It  has  never  ceased.  It  is  operative  to-day, 
a  little  less  operative  perhaps  than  a  generation  or  so  ago,  but 
it  is  still  a  potential  kind  of  powder  magazine  which  any  spark 
at  any  time  will  explode. 

There  have  been  in  a  general  way  since  the  time  of  Henry 
IV.  two  different  policies,  the  policy  of  Louis  XIV.  typically 
and  the  policy  of  Henry  himself.  The  policy  of  Henry  gener¬ 
ally  was  the  development  of  the  interior  resources  of  France, 
religious  tolerance,  respect  for  religious  conviction,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  respect  for  the  integrity  of  neighboring  nationali¬ 
ties.  He  was  ready  enough  to  fight,  but  he  fought  not  for 
aggrandizement,  but  for  the  defense  of  the  lesser  European 
states  about  him,  crushed  by  the  Spanish  and  Austrian  Haps- 
burgs.  One  has  only  to  look  back  over  the  centuries  to  see 
how  wise  such  a  policy  really  was,  a  policy  which  if  adopted 
by  the  whole  concert  of  European  powers  would  go  further 
than  anything  else  in  making  war  impossible  ;  a  policy,  more 
than  that,  which  has  underneath  it  tremendous  solidarities 
and  over  it  commensurate  compensations.  When  one  con¬ 
siders,  for  example,  that  Belgium  has  succeeded  for  almost  two 
thousand  years  now,  although  conquered  and  annexed  again 
and  again,  in  retaining  a  national  independency  established 
upon  racial  characteristics  with  everything — language,  com¬ 
merce,  geography  —  fighting  against  her  national  existence,  one 
sees  how  deeply  rooted  established  nationalities  really  are,  how 
the  tides  of  war  may  override  them  again  and  again  and  still 
leave  them  unchanged,  how  hopeless  it  is  to  undertake  to 
undo  by  force  what  has  been  done  by  long-standing  social  and 
racial  influences,  and  how  the  recognition  of  all  this  will  con¬ 
stantly  save  the  stronger  nations  from  attempting  the  blood¬ 
stained  and  impossible. 

The  policy  of  Louis  XIV.  was  distinctively  opposite.  It 
was  the  policy  of  the  violation  of  the  integrity  of  the  nations, 
a  policy  of  the  arbitrary  extension  of  boundary  lines,  a  policy 
of  the  forced  unifying  of  diverse  religious  faiths  and  national 
ideas.  How  sterile  it  all  was,  let  the  years  bear  witness  ;  how 
bloody  and  miserable  it  all  was,  let  history  bear  testimony. 


19 


There  is  one  thing  absolutely  certain  :  among  the  great  nations 
of  the  world  national  and  racial  characteristics  are  so  deeply 
rooted,  so  firmly  grounded,  that  an  attempt  to  override  them 
is  folly,  and  the  recognition  of  them  the  highest  statesmanship. 
And  in  the  recognition  of  them  there  lies  one  of  the  surest 
grounds  of  noble  and  permanent  peace. 

Now  all  this  merges  still  into  the  question  of  imperialism.  I 
know  that  all  this  is,  both  in  America  and  England,  a  live  wire, 
and  that  it  is  difficult  to  discuss  it  without  seeming  to  indict 
the  policies  of  great  parties  or  to  question  the  judgment  of 
wise  and  sincere  men,  but,  nevertheless,  we  are  compelled  to 
recognize  that  imperialism,  which  is  an  undue  extension  of 
national  authority,  the  failure  to  recognize  the  racial  rights 
of  even  inferior  peoples  and  the  general  assumption  of  certain 
virile  races  to  own  and  administer  the  earth,  has  been  since 
the  days  of  Egypt  and  Nineveh  one  of  the  most  frequent 
causes  of  war,  and  has  been  in  the  final  readjustment  of  history 
vastly  more  sterile  than  its  advocates  commonly  realize.  Up 
to  the  present  time  every  great  composite  empire  has  always 
gone  to  pieces,  and  has  generally,  when  fallen  apart,  resolved 
itself  into  the  racial  elements  of  which  it  was  composed.  Here 
again  is  a  mighty,  impressive  testimony  to  the  difficulty  of 
slighting  characteristics  and  distinctions  which  are  almost  as 
deep  as  human  nature.  One  would  be  foolish  not  to  recognize 
that  all  this  is  by  no  means  a  simple  question,  but  one  would 
be  foolish  not  to  recognize,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  con¬ 
quering  elements  in  every  imperial  policy  have  been  wisdom, 
service  and  leadership,  that  the  dissolving  elements  in  every 
imperial  policy  have  been  despotism  and  arbitrary  force.  One 
may  still  further  believe  that  whatever  is  good  in  imperial  and 
unifying  tendencies  may  be  well  served  by  pacific  ends,  and 
that  the  nations  will  speed  not  only  peace  but  the  highest  ends 
of  national  existence  by  putting  out  of  their  policies  and  their 
ideals  a  jingo  imperialism  which  never  has  been  and  never 
will  be  enduringly  rich  in  anything  but  trouble  and  strife. 

Another  cause  of  war  has  been  radical  trade  policies.  Once 
more  I  am  touching  live  wires,  but  the  discussion  of  the  theme 
demands  it.  From  the  second  period  of  the  Hundred  Years’ 
War,  when  France  began  to  interfere  with  the  trade  rights 
between  the  wool  producers  of  England  and  the  weavers  of  the 
Low  Countries,  the  dislocation  of  trade  rights,  arbitrary  inter¬ 
ference  with  industrial  policies,  and  violent  attempts  at  the 
national  monopoly  of  industry  have  been  persistent  and  fruitful 


20 


causes  of  war.  France  has  found  at  least  twice,  under  Colbert 
and  the  continental  policy  of  Napoleon,  the  beginning  of  her 
Blenheims  and  her  Waterloos  in  just  exactly  such  a  policy  as 
that.  Behind  every  tariff  war  there  lurks  also  always  the 
shadow  of  a  more  sanguine  and  destructive  strife.  One  thing 
to-day  which  is  making  for  peace  between  the  nations,  above 
preachers  and  prophets  and  congresses,  is  the  welding,  weaving 
power  of  international  commerce.  If  we  really  want  peace, 
and  incidentally  the  finest  and  most  permanent  kind  of  pros¬ 
perity,  we  will  recognize  in  the  realms  of  trade  that  no  nation 
lives  to  itself  or  dies  to  itself.  Just  as  civilization  is  enlarged 
spiritually  by  the  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  nations,  so 
we  are  enlarged  materially  by  the  recognition  of  the  commer¬ 
cial  rights  of  the  nations.  Artificial  barriers  and  closed  doors 
and  commercial  monopolies  take  the  place,  in  our  time,  of 
intolerance  and  dynastic  quarrels  in  an  earlier  time.  It  is  just 
as  sterile  and  just  as  foolish,  and  the  wise  as  well  as  the  pacific 
policy  is  a  policy  which  will  strive  to  build  up  the  commercial 
relations  of  the  peoples. 

Another  cause  of  war,  which  has  from  the  first  accompanied 
and  intensified  all  the  causes  which  I  have  named,  has  been 
international  misunderstanding  and  the  cultivation  of  fear,  dis¬ 
trust  and  strained  relations.  The  more  the  peoples  know  and 
understand  one  another,  the  more  we  get  over  claiming  for 
ourselves  one  by  one  the  monopoly  of  wisdom  and  virtue,  and 
the  more  we  cease  our  idle  and  irritating  war  talk,  the  more 
certain  we  are  to  find  a  satisfactory  peace.  It  would  be  almost 
as  impossible  for  two  nations  thoroughly  understanding  each 
other  to  fight  as  it  would  for  two  intimate  friends  to  fight. 
I  do  not  say  that  it  is  impossible  in  either  case,  but  I  do  say 
that  the  likelihood  of  peace  is  greatly  diminished,  and  that 
the  likelihood  of  war  is  immensely  increased  by  the  imputation 
of  it  and  the  gossip  of  it.  All  that  talk  in  which  certain  men, 
who  ought  to  know  better,  have  been  latterly  engaged,  about 
war  between  us  and  Japan  is  so  foolish  as  to  be  criminal. 
They  themselves  are  doing  everything  that  they  can  do  to 
create  the  very  thing  they  fear.  I  myself  am  not  so  old  that 
my  reminiscences  have  come  to  possess  the  value  of  history, 
and  yet  this  is  the  third  attack  of  this  particular  mania  which 
I  have  known.  In  my  boyhood  what  we  are  saying  now  about 
Japan  was  being  most  constantly  and  bitterly  said  about  our 
relations  with  England.  There  were  men  who  got  up  and  went 
to  bed  preaching  in  season  and  out  of  season  the  inherent 


hostility  of  the  two  branches  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  peoples 
and  the  certainty  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  war.  Following  that  was 
an  attack  of  Germanophobia.  Then  Germany  was  entertaining 
secret  and  desperate  designs  against  us.  The  Atlantic  sea¬ 
board  a  decade  before,  bombarded  in  imagination  by  British 
guns,  is  now  to  lie  at  the  mercy  of  German  cruisers.  To-day 
we  have  turned  our  faces  towards  the  Far  East  and  are  striving 
to  evoke  war  phantoms  out  of  Japan.  One  is  quite  as  foolish 
as  the  other.  The  last,  in  some  ways,  seems  the  most  foolish 
of  the  three. 

Whether  we  prepare  for  war  or  not,  let  us  at  least  do  it  with¬ 
out  hysteria,  and  if  we  are  determined  to  multiply  our  guns, 
let  us,  if  we  keep  their  mouths  open,  keep  our  own  shut. 
Surely  there  is  more  to  be  hoped  for  from  words  of  friendship 
than  from  words  of  irritation.  If  we  seek  peace,  let  us  speak 
its  language  and  strive  to  make  it  universal  in  the  whole  inter¬ 
course  of  the  nation’s  temper. 

In  the  latter  part  of  his  address  Dr.  Atkins  dwelt  more  par¬ 
ticularly  on  the  bases  of  peace.  We  must  in  the  first  place 
come  to  recognize  the  value  of  peace.  We  must  realize  that 
the  wars  which  we  glorify  have  their  foolish  and  unjust  side. 
We  can  accomplish  in  some  other  way  than  war  the  objects 
gained  by  them.  We  must  realize  that  the  higher  powers  are 
the  spiritual,  and  that  these  which  are  pent  up  in  the  modern 
battleships  should  be  released  for  a  more  godlike  conflict  with 
moral  foes.  They  should  be  devoted  to  building  cities,  erecting 
schools  and  colleges  and  beautifying  the  earth.  The  discipline 
of  the  barracks  has  a  greater  moral  equivalent  in  that  which  is 
required  to  fight  ignorance,  selfishness  and  sin.  We  need  to 
recognize,  too,  that  moral  qualities  are  better  safeguards  against 
an  enemy  than  the  qualities  of  the  brute.  We  in  America 
have  lived  a  hundred  years  without  being  attacked,  having 
grown  strong  by  force  of  our  just  dealing  and  fraternal  spirit 
with  other  nations.  We  are  therefore  safe.  Dr.  Atkins  was 
moved  to  protest  against  the  rising  national  fear  which  ex¬ 
pressed  itself  in  increased  armaments. 

Rev.  Dr.  Samuel  M.  Crothers,  who  had  been  announced  as 
one  of  the  speakers  of  the  evening,  was  unable  to  be  present. 
In  his  place  Dr.  Trueblood  was  invited  to  make  some  remarks, 
and  was  introduced  by  Bishop  Brewster  as  “  the  head  of  the 
workers  for  peace  in  America,”  to  give  the  meeting  “some 
words  of  counsel  and  inspiration.”  Dr.  Trueblood  said  : 


22 


THE  GROWING  POWER  OF  PUBLIC  SENTIMENT 

FOR  PEACE. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Secretary  of  the 
American  Peace  Society. 

Few  of  us  realize  the  strength  of  the  growing  public  feeling 
for  peace  in  our  civilized  nations  to-day —a  deepening  and  widen¬ 
ing  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  preservation  of  the  peace  of  the 
world  and  a  growing  determination  that  peace  shall  be  preserved. 

This  feeling  manifests  itself  under  emergencies  as  it  does  in 
no  other  way.  In  December,  1895?  President  Cleveland  issued 
his  famous  Venezuela  proclamation.  Almost  before  the  paper 
was  dry  a  great  wave  of  public  excitement  went  through  the 
land.  People  stopped  each  other  on  the  streets  and  asked, 
“  Will  it  be  war  with  Great  Britain  ?  ”  This  was  on  Saturday. 
Sunday  came,  and  from  a  hundred  thousand  pulpits,  probably, 
went  up  the  cry  “  We  must  not  have  war  with  Great  Britain. ” 
When  Monday  came  the  whole  tone  of  the  press  of  the  country 
was  changed.  The  clamor  for  war  had  been  transformed  into 
a  clamor  for  peace.  The  ministers  of  the  country  had  voiced 
the  feeling  of  all  the  thoughtful  people  of  whatever  class  and 
rank  in  society.  The  cry  for  war  ceased. 

A  little  while  ago  came  the  trouble  over  the  Japanese  pupils 
in  San  Francisco.  At  once  a  section  of  the  press  and  of  the 
people  began  to  talk  of  war  with  Japan.  Some  of  them  have 
kept  it  up  ever  since.  What  happened  ?  The  President,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  all  of  the  leading  men  in  public  life  in 
Washington,  and  practically  all  of  the  responsible  statesmen  of 
the  country,  said  that  there  must  be  no  war  with  Japan,  that 
Japan  had  no  wish  to  go  to  war  with  us.  All  the  responsible 
men  in  Japan  said  the  same  thing,  and  the  people  of  the  two 
countries,  aside  from  the  elements  of  which  I  speak,  have  re¬ 
sponded  and  supported  the  voice  of  the  two  governments. 
The  clamor  for  war  has  been  hushed. 

Two  years  and  more  ago  came  that  peculiar  alarm  in  Great 
Britain  about  war  with  Germany.  The  English  imagined  that 
they  saw  battleships  and  even  airships  coming  across  the  North 
Sea  to  drop  shells  on  London,  and  they  began  to  talk  every¬ 
where  about  “the  invasion.”  I  heard  Englishmen  a  year  ago 
talking  about  it  without  any  qualifications.  They  did  not  even 
put  in  “  Germany,”  but  spoke  of  “  the  invasion,  as  if  it  were  a 
predestined  event.  A  number  of  men  in  the  House  of  Com¬ 
mons,  the  great  king  of  England,  who  lies  dead  to-night,  the 


23 


responsible  statesmen  of  England  and  of  Germany,  spoke  out 
against  war.  The  better  England  responded,  and  to-day  the 
alarm  of  war  with  Germany  is  passing  away. 

One  other  incident.  Some  years  ago  French  soldiers  on  the 
upper  Nile  got  over  on  some  territory  claimed  by  the  British. 
The  British  soldiers  in  that  region  were  very  mad,  and  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  deliberation  and  patience  of  the  officers  there 
would  have  been  a  little  war  immediately.  The  thing  was 
reported  in  Great  Britain  and  the  British  were  on  fire  at  once, 
at  least  a  section  of  them,  and  it  looked  at  one  time  as  if  war 
were  inevitable.  A  British  fleet  was  sent  to  each  end  of  the 
Suez  Canal.  The  French  also  prepared  their  fleet  for  the 
conflict.  What  happened  ?  Some  business  men,  led  by  Dr. 
(afterwards  Sir)  Thomas  Barclay,  President  of  the  British 
Chamber  of  Commerce  in  Paris,  got  together  and  said  that 
there  must  not  be  war  between  France  and  Great  Britain  ;  it 
would  ruin  both  countries.  The  immense  channel  of  commerce 
would  be  broken  down  and  both  nations  would  be  bankrupted. 
These  men  enlisted  the  chambers  of  commerce  on  both  sides 
of  the  channel  in  their  anti-war  campaign  and  finally  secured 
the  cordial  endorsement  of  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  such 
bodies.  The  people,  as  well  as  the  governments,  learned  what 
these  business  men  were  doing  and  the  cries  for  war  ceased. 
The  business  men  followed  up  what  they  had  done  with  an 
effort  to  secure  a  treaty  of  arbitration  between  the  two  countries. 

At  the  Peace  Congress  held  at  Rouen  in  1903  we  had  a  large 
delegation  of  Englishmen.  They  called  a  meeting  with  their 
French  friends  at  Havre  the  last  day  of  the  Congress,  and  there 
leading  peace  workers  of  England  and  France  sat  down  together 
to  talk  about  an  arbitration  treaty  between  the  two  countries, 
not  knowing  that  already  the  matter  of  a  treaty  had  been  taken 
up  by  the  two  governments  as  a  result  of  the  action  of  the 
business  men.  On  the  14th  of  October,  shortly  after  the  close 
of  the  Congress,  the  two  governments  signed  and  published  to 
the  world  a  treaty  of  arbitration  providing  that  all  disputes  of 
a  judicial  order  and  questions  arising  out  of  the  interpretation 
of  treaties  should  be  referred  for  a  definite  period  to  the  Hague 
Court.  This  incident  illustrates  the  growing  feeling  of  the 
people,  even  business  men,  in  opposition  to  war  and  in  favor  of 
the  organization  of  permanent  peace,  and  their  power  when 
once  aroused  to  stay  war  scares. 

This  Anglo-French  treaty  of  obligatory  arbitration,  the  first 
of  its  kind  in  the  history  of  the  world,  was  signed  less  than 


24 


seven  years  ago.  It  was  an  expression  of  the  modern  spirit, 
the  new  Christian  spirit  that  is  prevailing  more  and  more  among 
the  nations.  Following  the  action  of  Great  Britain  and  France, 
treaties  of  obligatory  arbitration  have  been  rapidly  signed  until 
to-day  there  are  more  than  one  hundred  of  them,  binding  to¬ 
gether  practically  all  of  the  great  capitals  of  the  world.  Our 
own  country  leads  with  twenty-four  treaties.  All  this  has 
occurred  in  the  short  period  of  seven  years.  And  yet  people 
say  that  the  peace  movement  is  not  interesting  !  There  is 
probably  nothing  else  in  the  history  of  civilization  more  striking 
than  this  accomplishment.  There  is  no  bit  of  modern  history 
more  significant  than  this  of  the  new  order  of  feeling  among 
the  nations  and  the  practical  fruits  of  it  now  appearing. 

What  has  been  done  in  this  direction  is  a  prophecy  of  much 
larger  things  to  come.  The  second  Hague  Conference  three 
years  ago  considered  the  project  of  a  general  treaty  of  obligatory 
arbitration  to  be  signed  by  all  the  nations  in  common.  Thirty- 
five  of  the  powers  represented  at  The  Hague  voted  for  such  a 
treaty;  five  voted  against  the  project,  and  four  abstained 
from  voting.  The  large  vote  cast  for  such  a  treaty  represents 
unquestionably  the  general  sentiment  of  the  peoples  of  the 
civilized  nations.  This  feeling  is  widening  and  deepening  con¬ 
tinually.  Whenever  there  is  a  great  opportunity  to  express 
itself,  it  comes  to  the  front.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  this  growing 
sentiment  that  I  rest  my  hopes  of  an  early  culmination  of  this 
great  movement. 


OPENING  SESSION* 


Chamber  of  the  Connecticut  House  of  Representatives, 
Monday  Afternoon,  May  9,  1910. 

Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  LL.D.,  Presiding. 

Mr.  Arthur  Deerin  Call,  President  of  the  Connecticut  Peace 
Society  and  Chairman  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Con¬ 
gress,  made  the  opening  address.  He  said  : 

Succeeding  Charlemagne,  the  first  of  the  world’s  great 
statesmen  to  conceive  of  a  universal  state,  there  followed  a 
history  of  feudalism  and  of  perpetual  feudal  warfare,  and  yet 
brewing  in  that  darkness  were  the  signs  of  a  newer  day.  Out 
of  that  feudal  anarchy  of  the  ninth  century  grew  our  modern 
European  States.  In  that  darkness  worked  with  untiring 
energy  the  great  Catholic  Church  in  the  direction  of  peace. 
Indeed,  through  the  influence  of  the  church  there  was  estab¬ 
lished  the  Truce  of  God,  which  prohibited  hostilities  from 
Thursday  night  until  Monday  morning,  upon  fast  days  and 
other  special  periods. 

Down  through  the  succeeding  centuries  various  seers  have 
contended  that  war  is  wrong,  that  peace  is  right,  and  that,  as 
God  lives,  war  shall  wane  and  peace  prevail,  that  “  nation  shall 
not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war 
any  more.” 

Mr.  Call,  having  sketched  the  history  of  the  peace  movement 
in  Connecticut, *  added  : 

The  New  England  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress  is  held 
in  Hartford  and  New  Britain  this  year  because  of  Hartford’s 
early  contribution  to  the  history  of  international  peace  work  ; 
because  we  would  pay  our  tribute  to  the  memory  of  Elihu  Bur- 
ritt ;  because  we  would  do  our  share  towards  preparing  the  pub¬ 
lic  mind  for  the  next  Hague  Conference ;  because  we  see  hope 
for  the  ultimate  realization  of  a  practical  substitute  for  the 
arbitrament  of  the  sword  ;  because  we  would  establish  a  Truce 
of  God  which  shall  last  from  Monday  morning  until  Monday 
morning  and  from  generation  to  generation  down  the  ages. 
“  At  all  events,  it  is  our  duty  to  sow  seed  and  to  leave  it  to 
God  to  appoint  the  reapers.” 


*  For  the  history  of  Connecticut  in  the  Peace  Movement  by  Mrs.  Call,  see  Appendix. 


2  6 


Mr.  Call  introduced  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers  as  the  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  Congress.  Dean  Rogers  then  presented  Hon. 
Isaac  W.  Brooks,  Acting  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Connecticut, 
and  Hon.  Edward  L.  Smith,  Mayor  of  Hartford,  who  extended 
to  the  delegates  a  hearty  official  welcome  from  the  State  and 
the  city. 

The  President,  having  gracefully  expressed  the  gratitude  and 
appreciation  of  the  delegates  for  their  cordial  welcome,  de¬ 
livered  the  following  address  : 


THE  PRESENT  PROBLEM:  HOW  WAR  IS  TO  BE 

ABOLISHED, 

Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  LL.  D.,  President  of  the 

Congress. 

It  is  written  in  one  of  the  Songs  of  David,  “  Scatter  thou 
the  people  that  delight  in  war.”  Peace  congresses  have  en¬ 
deavored,  and  with  some  degree  of  success,  to  accomplish  that 
result.  The  number  of  those  who  delight  in  war  has  been 
constantly  diminishing  ever  since  peace  societies  began  their 
work  and  peace  congresses  assembled.  The  New  England 
Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress  has  been  convened  to  aid  in 
securing  the  ultimate  abolition  of  war  throughout  the  world. 
If  that  end  is  ever  attained,  it  will  be  because  the  people  of  the 
world  have  been  made  intelligent  concerning  the  evils  of  war, 
and  have  come  to  know  that  international  disputes  can  and 
should  be  settled  by  reason,  and  not  by  force.  The  war  spirit 
is  in  the  blood  of  the  race.  The  remedy  is  in  counteracting 
this  natural  tendency  by  educating  men  concerning  the  cost  of 
war,  the  horror  of  war,  the  cruelty  of  war,  the  sinfulness  of 
war  and  the  needlessness  of  war.  It  is  through  congresses  like 
this  that  the  public  opinion  of  the  world  is  being  educated  in 
favor  of  the  maintenance  of  peace  among  all  nations.  Benjamin 
Franklin  said  there  had  never  been  a  good  war  or  a  bad  peace. 
We  must,  however,  admit  that  there  have  been  wars  which 
have  conferred  benefit  upon  the  world.  It  is  true,  as  Hosea 
Biglow  has  said  :  “  .  .  .  civilization  does  git  forrid,  sometimes 
upon  a  powder  cart.” 

The  peace  congresses  do  not  deny  the  fact,  but  they  want 
to  substitute  a  court  for  a  powder  cart.  While  they  concede 
that  some  few  wars  have  been  beneficial  in  their  results,  they 
assert  that  most  wars  have  been  evil.  John  Richard  Green, 


27 


who  has  given  the  world  a  true  history  of  the  English  people', 
teaches  that  no  war  in  which  England  has  ever  taken  part  has 
had  a  permanent  influence  upon  its  national  development  except 
the  long  war  with  France,  and  that  the  effect  of  that  war  was 
wholly  evil.  What  the  peace  congresses  want  is  to  rid  the 
world  of  bombs  and  cannon,  bayonets  and  swords.  They  want 
the  energies  of  mankind  directed  not  to  the  slaughter  of  men 
and  the  devastation  of  countries  and  the  spread  of  misery 
throughout  the  world,  but  rather  to  the  alleviation  of  suffering, 
the  diffusion  of  knowledge  and  an  improvement  in  the  condi¬ 
tions  of  life  for  the  unfortunate  and  the  dependent.  They 
want  to  save  the  immense  waste  of  war  and  turn  it  into  useful 
channels  for  the  world’s  betterment.  “  Blessed  are  the  peace¬ 
makers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God.” 

The  peace  congresses,  in  pressing  this  matter  upon  the 
attention  of  mankind,  are  engaged  in  a  mission  as  important 
as  any  that  can  engage  the  thought  of  man.  The  British 
Prime  Minister,  Mr.  Asquith,  speaking  in  London  on  July  31, 
1908,  at  a  banquet  given  by  the  government  of  Great  Britain 
to  the  delegates  to  the  seventeenth  Universal  Peace  Congress, 
proclaimed  that  the  greatest  of  all  reforms  was  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  peace  on  earth.  It  is  to  aid  in  the  furtherance  of  this 
great  cause  that  this  Congress  of  the  New  England  States  is 
now  in  session  here  in  the  legislative  halls  of  one  of  the  oldest 
of  the  Commonwealths. 

* 

If,  perchance,  some  may  say  that  the  mission  of  this  Congress 
can  never  be  realized,  let  them  be  reminded  of  the  maxim  by 
which  the  great  Moltke  was  accustomed  to  govern  his  conduct : 
“  Only  by  striving  for  the  impossible  may  we  attain  the  possi¬ 
ble.”  But  is  the  end  which  this  Congress  seeks  one  which  is 
never  to  be  realized  ?  The  greatest  of  Old  Testament  prophets 
predicted  more  than  twenty-six  hundred  years  ago  that  a  time 
would  come  when  nations  would  not  learn  war  any  more.  The 
ear  is  not  yet  weary  of  his  silver  tones  proclaiming  :  “  And  he 
shall  judge  between  the  nations,  and  shall  decide  concerning 
many  peoples  ;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plow¬ 
shares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks  ;  nation  shall  not 
lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any 
more.” 

The  long  centuries  have  passed,  and  the  prophecy  remains 
unfulfilled  ;  but  through  all  the  years  mankind  has  not  forgotten 
the  words  of  the  Hebrew  seer.  We  are  here  to-day  believing 
that  ultimately  the  prediction  is  to  be  fulfilled.  We  are  here 


28 


believing  that  it  was  not  a  poet’s  dream,  but  a  poet’s  vision, 
which  Tennyson  had  when  he  “dipt  into  the  future,  far  as 
human  eye  could  see,”  and  saw  a  time  when 

“  The  war  drum  throbbed  no  longer,  and  the  battle-flags  were  furled 
In  the  Parliament  of  Man,  the  Federation  of  the  World.” 

There  are  intelligent  men  who  say  they  sincerely  desire  that 
war  shall  end  and  that  the  peace  of  the  world  shall  be  forever 
maintained,  who  nevertheless  distrust  peace  congresses  and 
stand  aloof  from  their  councils.  From  the  beginnings  of  time 
no  cause,  however  worthy,  has  escaped  criticism.  Leaders  in 
great  movements  which  have  run  counter  to  the  traditions,  the 
prejudices  and  the  public  opinion  of  their  times,  have  been 
content  to  be  called  impracticable.  They  have  not  courted 
popular  favor.  They  have  had  the  courage  of  their  convictions. 
They  have  preferred  the  approval  of  their  own  consciences. 
They  have  done  their  own  thinking. 

The  early  Christian  Fathers,  the  noble  army  of  martyrs  and 
the  leaders  in  the  anti-slavery  cause  were  subjected  to  a  bitter¬ 
ness  of  criticism  that  those  who  have  made  the  advocacy  of 
peace  their  special  work  have  never  known.  Forty  years  ago 
Mr.  Godkin  wrote  in  The  Nation :  “  It  is  certain  that  during 
the  last  fifty  years,  the  period  in  which  peace  societies  have 
been  at  work,  armies  have  been  growing  steadily  larger,  the 
means  of  destruction  have  been  multiplying  and  wars  have  been 
as  frequent  and  as  bloody  as  ever  before  ;  and,  what  is  worse, 
the  popular  heart  goes  into  war  as  it  has  never  done  in  past 
ages.”  The  peace  societies  have  been  at  work  now  for  nearly 
a  hundred  years  and  during  the  whole  of  the  period  armaments 
have  steadily  increased.  But  the  appeal  of  the  peace  societies 
to  the  public  conscience  has  been  by  no  means  a  failure.  The 
desire  for  peace,  the  abhorrence  of  war,  were  never  before  so 
strong.  The  abolition  of  war  has  not  been  accomplished,  but 
the  movement  to  that  end  has  enlisted  no  longer  in  its  support 
simply  the  scholars  in  the  cloister.  Practical  statesmen  in 
every  nation  and  men  of  affairs  are  now  at  work  on  the  problem 
of  finding  a  substitute  for  war.  The  conscience  of  all  nations 
has  been  quickened.  In  every  part  of  the  world  to-day  many 
men  believe  that  sooner  or  later  international  differences  will 
cease  to  be  settled  by  force  of  arms.  Mr.  Root,  when  Secretary 
of  State,  said  :  “  The  open  public  declaration  of  a  principle  in 

such  a  way  as  to  carry  evidence  that  it  has  the  support  of  a 
great  body  of  men  entitled  to  respect  has  a  wonderfully  com¬ 
pelling  effect  upon  mankind.”  The  open  public  declaration  of 


29 


the  principle  of  peace  made  in  the  peace  congresses  which  have 
been  held,  and  which  have  commanded  the  support  of  men  of 
great  ability  and  distinction,  undoubtedly  has  had  “a  compelling 
effect  ”  upon  the  thought  of  the  world. 

As  this  is  the  first  peace  congress  which  has  assembled  under 
the  auspices  of  the  New  England  States,  it  seems  appropriate 
to  mention  the  services  of  New  England  to  the  cause  of  peace. 
Those  services  began  with  the  inauguration  of  the  peace  move¬ 
ment  in  the  United  States.  Peace  societies  exist  to-day  in 
every  part  of  the  world.  There  are  now  some  five  hundred 
organizations  of  this  character  which  are  seeking  to  influence 
the  public  opinion  of  their  respective  countries  upon  this  the 
most  momentous  of  all  the  questions  by  which  the  nations  are 
perplexed.  While  the  honor  belongs  to  New  York  of  having 
established  the  first  peace  society  in  the  world,  a  New  Eng¬ 
land  State  founded  the  second  and  at  almost  the  same  time. 
The  New  York  Society  was  established  in  August,  1815  ;  the 
Massachusetts  Society  in  December  of  the  same  year.  The 
Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations  Society  was  organized 
in  March,  1817.  The  New  Hampshire  branch  of  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Society  dated  from  March,  1818.  The  Vermont  So¬ 
ciety  followed  in  October,  1819.  The  Maine  Society  was  not 
established  until  1826  and  the  Connecticut  Society  not  until 
1831.  There  had,  however,  been  established  county  societies 
in  nearly  every  county  of  the  Commonwealth  for  several  years 
prior  to  the  organization  of  the  State  Society  in  Connecticut. 

The  peace  movement  owes  a  heavy  debt  of  gratitude  to  New 
England,  for  the  men  who  took  the  lead  in  the  early  days  of  the 
movement  were  born  on  New  England  soil.  There  was  Noah 
Worcester,  upon  whose  initiative  the  Massachusetts  Peace 
Society  was  organized.  He  published  in  1814  “A  Solemn 
Review  of  the  Custom  of  War.”  So  inveterate  and  bigoted 
were  the  prejudices  which  at  that  time  surrounded  the  cause 
that  a  publisher  was  secured  with  the  greatest  difficulty  and  it 
had  to  be  published  anonymously.  It  was  extensively  circulated 
at  home  and  abroad  and  was  republished  in  Europe  in  several 
languages.  In  his  opening  words  he  asked,  “  What  custom  of 
the  most  barbarous  nations  is  more  repugnant  to  the  feelings 
of  piety,  humanity  and  justice  than  that  of  deciding  contro¬ 
versies  between  nations  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  by  powder 
and  ball,  or  the  point  of  the  bayonet  ?  ” 

There  was  William  Ellery  Channing,  a  classmate  at  Harvard 
of  Mr.  Justice  Story,  and  of  whom  it  has  been  written  that 


30 


“From  the  high,  old-fashioned  pulpit  his  face  beamed  down,  it 
may  be  said,  like  the  face  of  an  angel,  and  his  voice  floated 
down  like  a  voice  from  higher  spheres.”  He  was  a  leader  not 
only  in  the  anti-slavery  cause,  but  in  the  cause  of  peace.  It 
was  in  his  study  in  Boston  that  the  Massachusetts  Peace  So¬ 
ciety  was  organized.  With  tongue  and  pen  he  directed  his 
eloquence,  famed  in  Europe  as  well  as  in  America,  against  the 
evils  of  war. 

There  was  William  Ladd,  the  founder  of  the  American  Peace 
Society,  of  which  he  was  the  president  for  many  years.  Born 
in  New  Hampshire  and  a  resident  of  Maine,  he  dedicated  his 
life  to  the  cause  of  peace.  He  went  through  New  England 
from  place  to  place  organizing  societies  and  everywhere  incul¬ 
cating  hatred  of  war,  its  wrong  and  its  iniquities.  He  edited 
the  Harbinger  of  Peace,  the  first  organ  of  the  American  Peace 
Society. 

There  was  Elihu  Burritt,  the  centennial  of  whose  birth  this 
Congress  will  commemorate.  He  was  born  and  died  on  the 
soil  of  Connecticut.  This  “learned  blacksmith”  “left  the 
anvil  at  home  to  teach  the  nations  how  to  change  their  swords 
into  plowshares  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks.”  The 
earliest  international  peace  congresses,  held  in  Europe,  were 
of  his  inspiring. 

Among  other  New  England  men  who  have  been  earnest  in 
the  advocacy  of  the  cause  of  peace  and  who  have  passed  from 
among  the  living,  you  will  recall  the  names  of  Whittier,  Emer¬ 
son,  Edward  Everett  Hale,  Horace  Bushnell,  Phillips  Brooks, 
William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  Charles  Summer.  We  honor  them 
and  pay  them  reverence  here  to-day.  The  whole  country  honors 
them.  Each  was  a  benefactor  of  mankind. 

In  1895  a  New  Englander,  Richard  Olney,  became  Secretary 
of  State  in  Mr.  Cleveland’s  cabinet.  He  negotiated  a  general 
arbitration  treaty  with  Great  Britain.  The  treaty  he  desired 
was  one  of  broad  scope  and  with  few  reservations.  When  it 
was  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  ratification  forty-three  Senators 
voted  aye,  twenty-six  nay.  The  treaty  failed,  as  it  did  not  re¬ 
ceive  the  approval  of  two-thirds  of  the  Senate.  But  let  it  be 
remembered  to  the  honor  of  New  England  that  not  a  single 
one  of  her  twelve  Senators  voted  against  that  treaty.  New 
England  is  for  international  arbitration  and  an  international 
court. 

There  are  those  who  profess  to  favor  war  as  something  nec¬ 
essary  to  the  development  of  a  nation’s  finest  qualities.  It  is 


3i 

by  such  means  that  they  would  cultivate  the  vigor,  the  courage 
and  the  manhood  of  the  race.  President  Taft  says  of  such  men 
that  they  profess  to  think  as  they  do  in  order  that  they  may  be 
thought  by  their  fellows  to  be  different  from  most  men.  How¬ 
ever  that  may  be,  the  majority  of  men  refuse  to  believe  that  it 
is  necessary  to  plunge  a  nation  into  hell  once  in  so  many  years 
in  order  to  cultivate  the  virtues  and  save  the  race  from  degen¬ 
erating  into  weaklings  and  mollycoddles.  If  war  is  needed  in 
order  that  man  may  be  invigorated,  invincible  fortitude  nour¬ 
ished,  courage  kept  alive  and  contempt  of  death  inculcated, 
then  peace  societies  should  disband  and  organizations  be  formed 
to  encourage  men  periodically  to  meet  their  fellowmen  and 
beasts  of  prey  in  mortal  combat  in  the  arena.  The  idea  is 
unsound  in  ethics  and  based  on  false  philosophy.  Channing 
answered  years  ago  that  “  there  is  at  least  equal  scope  for  cour¬ 
age  and  magnanimity  in  blessing  as  in  destroying  mankind. 
The  condition  of  the  human  race  offers  inexhaustible  objects 
for  enterprise  and  fortitude  and  magnanimity.” 

Against  the  physical  courage  of  the  brute  force  which  maims 
and  kills  men,  let  us  place  the  more  heroic  moral  courage  which 
saves  and  serves  men.  Clarkson  climbing  the  decks  of  Liver¬ 
pool  slave-ships,  Howard  penetrating  infected  dungeons,  Sisters 
of  Charity  breathing  contagion  in  thronged  hospitals  afforded 
Whittier  a  loftier  ideal  of  Christian  heroism  than  did  those  who 
put  on  battle  harness  and  exposed  themselves  to  death  by  sabre 
clash  and  cannon  fire.  These  as  truly  took  their  lives  in  their 
hands  as  did  those  who  went  into  battle  ;  they  sought  not  to 
take  other  men’s  lives,  but  to  save  them.  The  noblest  speci¬ 
mens  of  self-surrender  seemed  to  Phillips  Brooks  not  to  have 
been  on  the  field  of  battle  when  the  dying  soldier  handed  the 
cup  of  water  to  his  dying  foe.  “  They  have  been,”  he  said, 
“in  the  lanes  and  alleys  of  great  cities  when  quiet  and  deter¬ 
mined  men  and  women  have  bowed  before  the  facts  of  human 
brotherhood  and  human  need,  and  given  the  full  cups  of  their 
entire  lives  to  the  parched  lips  of  their  poor  brethren.” 

Time  was  when  all  men  went  armed,  even  as  to-day  all  nations 
are  armed.  In  a  former  age  the  sword  was  an  indispensable 
part  of  every  gentleman’s  dress.  Wherever  he  went  he  wore 
it,  whether  he  appeared  on  the  street  or  at  the  society  function. 
Those  whose  social  position  did  not  entitle  them  to  wear  the 
sword  carried  a  pistol  in  the  hip  pocket. 

Men  were  not  only  walking  arsenals,  but  so  great  was  their 
distrust  of  their  neighbors  that  those  who  could  lived  in  fortified 


32 


dwellings  made  as  impregnable  from  attack  as  possible.  Their 
castles  they  surrounded  with  the  moat  and  the  drawbridge, 
which  by  means  of  chains  and  weights  could  be  pulled  up 
against  the  entrance,  thus  cutting  off  all  communication  with 
the  outside.  Inside  the  moat  they  constructed  a  wall  thirty 
feet  high  and  ten  feet  thick,  surmounted  by  a  parapet  with 
embattlements.  The  main  gate  of  the  castle  they  flanked  with 
strong  towers  having  embattled  parapets,  and  they  rendered  it 
doubly  secure  by  an  iron  portcullis.  They  lived  surrounded  by 
belligerent  armaments,  and  were  ever  ready  to  repel  an  assault. 

The  lords  of  industry  do  not  live  to-day  after  the  manner  of 
the  lords  of  the  fee  a  few  centuries  ago.  The  individual  no 
longer  builds  a  fortified  castle.  He  has  disarmed  and  dis¬ 
mantled  his  fortress.  But  nations  continue  to  go  armed,  and 
they  live  behind  fortifications  as  did  the  nations  of  antiquity. 
The  individual  in  the  early  stages  of  society  redressed  his  own 
wrongs  and  did  it  after  his  own  fashion.  The  custom  of  society 
permitted  him  to  do  so. 

“A  system  of  self-redress  in  the  form  of  private  vengeance,” 
says  Mr.  Moyle  in  speaking  of  the  Roman  law,  “  preceded 
everywhere  the  establishment  of  a  regular  judication ;  the 
injured  person,  with  his  kinsman  or  dependents,  made  a  foray 
against  the  wrongdoer,  and  swept  away  his  cattle,  and  with 
them  perhaps  his  wife  and  children,  or  he  threatened  him  with 
supernatural  penalties  by  fasting  upon  him,  as  in  the  East  even 
at  the  present  day  ;  or,  finally,  he  reduced  his  adversary  to 
servitude  or  took  his  life.”  The  primitive  history  of  English 
law  was  in  this  respect  exactly  similar.  “The  fact,”  says  Mr. 
Justice  Stephen,  “  that  private  vengeance  of  the  person  wronged 
by  a  crime  was  the  principal  source  to  which  men  trusted  for 
the  administration  of  criminal  justice  in  early  times  is  one  of 
the  most  characteristic  circumstances  connected  with  English 
criminal  law.” 

The  establishment  of  the  reign  of  law  for  the  individual  was 
accomplished  with  difficulty.  Within  a  century,  even  in  Eng¬ 
land  and  in  the  United  States,  it  has  been  customary  for  in¬ 
dividuals  to  settle  certain  questions  on  the  field  of  honor  and 
with  deadly  weapons.  In  1824  the  Duke  of  Wellington  wrote 
that  it  was  a  matter  of  no  consequence  that  certain  duels  were 
to  be  fought.  Five  years  later  this  hero  of  Waterloo,  who  was 
at  the  time  Prime  Minister  of  England,  sent  a  challenge  and 
fought  a  duel.  The  greatest  of  men  in  English  public  life  — 
Charles  James  Fox,  Sheridan,  Pitt,  Canning,  Grattan,  O’Connell, 


33 


Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Disraeli  —  sent  and  accepted  challenges. 
Finally,  in  the  reign  of  Victoria,  and  through  the  influence  of 
the  Prince  Consort,  “the  first  gentleman  of  England,”  the  cus¬ 
tom  was  ended.  In  our  own  country  it  was  not  otherwise. 
Burr  was  Vice-President  when  in  1804  he  challenged  Hamilton. 
And  so  strong  was  public  opinion  that  Hamilton  felt  con¬ 
strained  to  accept  it.  “The  ability  to  be  in  future  useful” 
made  it  necessary,  he  wrote,  for  him  to  do  so  in  conformity  to 
the  public  prejudice  which  then  existed.  Andrew  Jackson  was 
a  confirmed  duelist,  and  in  1806  killed  his  antagonist.  In 
1817,  then  a  major-general,  he  challenged  General  Scott,  which 
challenge  Scott  declined  on  the  ground  of  religious  scruples 
and  patriotic  duty.  In  1826,  Clay,  who  was  then  Secretary  of 
State,  fought  a  duel  with  Randolph,  who  was  in  the  Senate. 
Benton,  in  his  “Thirty  Years’  View,”  devotes  eight  pages  to 
it,  and  concludes  :  “  It  was  about  the  last  high-toned  duel  that 
I  have  witnessed,  and  amongst  the  highest-toned  I  have  ever 
witnessed.”  As  late  as  1842  General  Shields  challenged  Abra¬ 
ham  Lincoln,  and  it  was  accepted.  Mr.  Lincoln  thought  he 
could  not  avoid  it.  The  duel  was  never  fought,  as  the  challenge 
was  withdrawn.  The  practice  continued  in  the  South  after  it 
had  been  discontinued  in  the  North.  As  late  as  i860  Jeffer¬ 
son  Davis,  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate,  justified  the  duel  as  a 
mode  of  settling  personal  differences  and  vindicating  personal 
honor. 

The  individual  did  not  surrender  his  arms  and  dismantle  his 
fortress  until  the  State  had  established  courts  to  redress  his 
wrongs,  and  had  provided  a  police  power  which  could  effectively 
protect  him  and  relieve  him  of  the  duty  of  protecting  himself. 
Even  then  he  was  unwilling  to  submit  certain  personal  injuries, 
which  affected  him  in  his  honor,  to  the  settlement  of  the  courts. 
For  such  wrongs  he  insisted,  down  to  our  own  times,  that  he 
should  be  permitted  to  demand  personal  satisfaction  in  a  per¬ 
sonal  encounter  and  with  a  deadly  weapon. 

The  present  problem  is  to  apply  to  nations  the  rule  we  apply 
to  individuals  :  to  provide  a  court  which  can  settle  the  dis¬ 
putes  of  nations  according  to  principles  of  justice  and  right, 
and  to  provide  a  police  power  adequate  to  the  enforcement  of 
the  court’s  decrees.  To  this  court  when  established  the  nations 
must  submit  their  differences,  even  as  individuals  must  submit 
theirs  to  the  local  tribunals.  The  world  must  be  rid  of  the 
idea  that  nations  may  resort  to  violence.  And  we  may  hope 
that,  as  the  individual  has  come  to  abandon  the  idea  that  he 


34 


must  himself,  by  the  force  of  his  own  hand,  redress  certain 
wrongs  which  affect  his  honor,  the  nations  likewise,  in  course 
of  time,  will  see  that  what  they  call  questions  of  national  honor 
can  be  submitted  safely  and  properly  to  an  international  court. 
In  a  speech  made  in  New  York  on  March  22,  1910,  President 
Taft  said  :  “  Personally,  I  do  not  see  any  more  reason  why  mat¬ 
ters  of  national  honor  should  not  be  referred  to  a  court  of  arbi¬ 
tration  than  matters  of  property  or  matters  of  national  pro¬ 
prietorship.”  He  continued  :  “  I  do  not  see  why  questions  of 
honor  may  not  be  submitted  to  a  tribunal  supposed  to  be  com¬ 
posed  of  men  of  honor  who  understand  questions  of  national 
honor,  to  abide  their  decision,  as  well  as  any  other  question  of 
difference  arising  between  the  nations.” 

In  1896,  in  a  conference  held  at  Washington,  Carl  Schurz 
expressed  himself  in  like  manner :  *•  As  to  so-called  questions 
of  honor,”  he  said,  “  it  is  time  for  modern  civilization  to  leave 
behind  it  those  mediaeval  notions,  according  to  which  personal 
honor  found  its  best  protection  in  the  dueling  pistol,  and 
national  honor  could  be  vindicated  only  by  slaughter  and 
devastation.” 

Most  men  have  come  to  recognition  of  the  fact  that  war  is 
an  inefficient  instrument  for  redressing  wrong.  It  inflicts  in¬ 
jury  upon  both  parties,  and  not  merely  upon  the  wrong-doer. 
It  determines  the  justice  of  no  cause.  It  is  the  scourge  of 
mankind.  Nations  justify  great  armaments  as  desired  for  de¬ 
fensive  and  not  aggressive  wars.  The  ancients  made  war 
inspired  by  greed  for  gold  and  women  and  slaves  and  territory 
and  ambition.  In  these  modern  days  we  are  advised  to  build 
great  Dreadnaughts,  not  to  make,  but  to  prevent,  war.  Are 
great  armaments  necessary  to  safeguard  the  peace  ?  “  In  time 

of  peace  prepare  for  war”  is,  said  Sumner,  a  pagan  maxim  that 
belongs  to  the  dogmas  of  barbarism.  He  insisted  that  great 
armies  and  great  navies  are  the  promoters  of  war  and  not  the 
preservers  of  peace.  Nations  which  possess  the  greatest  arma¬ 
ments  are  those  which  are  the  most  belligerent.  We  know 
from  experience  the  consequences  which  followed  when  every 
man  carried  a  pistol  or  a  bowie  knife.  The  list  of  homicides 
was  longest  in  the  community  which  tolerated  the  practice. 
It  provoked  frequently,  and  sometimes  on  slight  provocation, 
deadly  encounters.  The  carrying  of  concealed  weapons  on  the 
person  had  on  that  account  to  be  prohibited  by  law.  It  has 
been  admirably  said  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jefferson  of  New  York 
City  that  “the  man  who  paces  up  and  down  my  front  pavement 


35 


with  a  gun  on  his  shoulder  may  have  peaceful  sentiments,  but 
he  does  not  infuse  peace  into  me.  It  does  not  help  matters 
for  him  to  shout  out  every  few  minutes,  ‘  I  will  not  hurt  you  if 
you  behave  yourself/  for  I  do  not  know  his  standard  of  good 
behavior,  and  the  very  sight  of  the  gun  keeps  me  in  a  state  of 
chronic  alarm.” 

But  if  it  is  dangerous  for  individual  man  to  go  about  armed, 
may  it  not  be  for  a  nation  ?  One  of  the  reasons  assigned  by 
Frederick  the  Great  for  making  war  upon  Maria  Theresa  was 
that  he  had  troops  all  ready  to  act.  One  of  the  three  things 
which,  according  to  Bacon,  prepare  and  dispose  a  people  for 
war  is  a  “state  of  soldiery  professed.”  The  argument  that 
peace  can  best  be  maintained  by  having  the  nation  always  well 
armed  was  repudiated  by  Mr.  Justice  Brewer  in  a  notable  ad¬ 
dress  delivered  in  June,  1909,  before  the  State  Bar  Association 
of  New  Jersey.  The  recent  death  of  the  distinguished  jurist 
deprived  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  of  one  of  its 
most  eminent  members,  took  from  the  cause  of  peace  in  this 
country  one  of  its  foremost  advocates,  and  prevented  this  Con¬ 
gress,  in  which  he  had  promised  to  participate,  from  having  the 
benefit  of  his  presence  and  counsel.  Mr.  Justice  Brewer,  in 
the  address  referred  to,  said  : 

“  In  order  to  bring  about  the  condition  of  peace,  a  minimum  of  army  and  navy 
is  the  most  effective  way.  There  never  yet  was  a  nation  which  built  up  a  maxi¬ 
mum  of  army  and  navy  that  did  not  get  into  war,  and  the  pretense  current  in 
certain  circles  that  the  best  way  to  preserve  peace  is  to  build  up  an  enormous 
navy  shows  an  ignorance  of  the  lessons  of  history  and  the  conditions  of  genuine 
and  enduring  peace.  It  might  as  well  be  said  that,  to  stop  personal  quarrels  and 
prevent  shooting,  the  law  should  require  every  man  to  carry  a  loaded  pistol  in  his 
hip-pocket.” 

The  present  problem  of  the  nations  is  the  abolition  of  public 
war.  It  is  to  be  solved  in  the  same  way  that  the  individual 
States  solved  the  problem  of  the  abolition  of  private  war  —  by 
the  administration  of  justice  through  judicial  procedure.  To 
establish  an  international  court  by  international  compact,  and 
to  secure  an  agreement  of  the  nations  that  they  will  submit 
to  that  court  the  differences  which  they  cannot  settle  by 
diplomacy,  is  a  matter  of  the  very  highest  importance. 

The  idea  of  a  court  which  should  sit  permanently,  resembling 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  was  suggested  at  the 
first  Hague  Conference  in  1899.  It  was  embodied  in  the  first 
American  proposal.  An  almost  unanimous  opinion  developed 
against  it.  It  was  agreed  that  the  tribunal  which  that  Confer¬ 
ence  provided  for  should  not  sit  permanently.  The  objection 


36 


was  made  that  the  expense  of  maintaining  such  a  court  in  per¬ 
manent  session  would  prove  irksome  to  all  the  powers  and 
burdensome  to  some,  especially  as  there  would  be  long  intervals 
when  the  court  would  have  no  business  to  consider.  At  the 
second  Hague  Conference,  in  1907,  the  American  delegation 
presented  the  project  of  an  International  Court  of  Arbitral 
Justice,  which  was  accepted  in  principle.  In  presenting  the 
American  proposition  Mr.  Choate  said  : 

“  Mr.  President,  with  all  the  earnestness  of  which  we  are  capable,  and  with  a 
solemn  sense  of  the  obligations  and  responsibilities  resting  upon  us  as  members 
of  the  conference  which  in  a  certain  sense  holds  in  its  hands  the  fate  and  fortunes 
of  the  nations,  we  commend  the  scheme  which  we  have  thus  proposed  to  the 
careful  consideration  of  our  sister  nations.  We  cherish  no  pride  of  opinion  as 
to  any  point  or  feature  that  we  have  suggested  in  regard  to  the  constitution  and 
powers  of  the  court.  We  are  ready  to  yield  any  or  all  of  them  for  the  sake  of 
harmony,  but  we  do  insist  that  this  great  gathering  of  the  representatives  of  all 
nations  will  be  false  to  its  trust  and  will  deserve  that  the  seal  of  condemnation 
shall  be  set  upon  its  work,  if  it  does  not  strain  every  nerve  to  bring  about  the 
establishment  of  some  such  great  and  permanent  tribunal  which  shall,  by  its 
supreme  authority,  compel  the  attention  and  deference  of  the  nations  we  repre¬ 
sent,  and  bring  to  final  adjudication  before  it  differences  of  an  international 
character  that  shall  arise  between  them,  and  whose  decisions  shall  be  appealed 
to  as  time  progresses  for  the  deteimination  of  all  questions  of  international  law.” 

The  appeal  was  not  in  vain.  The  Conference,  after  pro¬ 
longed  discussion,  unanimously  recommended  that  the  project 
for  the  establishment  of  the  court  be  submitted  to  the  powers 
and  put  into  operation  as  soon  as  a  method  of  appointing  the 
judges  should  be  agreed  upon.  The  Conference  did  not  come 
to  an  agreement  concerning  the  appointment  of  the  judges, 
and  that,  since  its  adjournment,  has  been  the  subject  of  nego¬ 
tiation.  But  nothing  which  has  been  done  in  the  past  centuries 
is  so  far-reaching  a  step  in  the  direction  of  establishing  perma¬ 
nent  peace  among  nations  as  the  adoption  by  the  Conference 
of  this  plan  for  a  permanent  arbitral  court. 

The  difficulty  experienced  at  the  Conference  in  coming  to 
an  agreement  concerning  the  appointment  of  the  judges  has 
led  the  present  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Knox,  to  propose  to 
the  interested  nations  that  the  International  Prize  Court  should 
be  invested  with  the  jurisdiction  and  functions  of  the  Court  of 
Arbitral  Justice.  The  acceptance  of  this  proposition  will  give 
the  nations  which  adopt  it  a  permanent  court  for  the  settle¬ 
ment  not  only  of  questions  which  arise  in  time  of  war,  but  also 
those  which  arise  in  time  of  peace.  The  successful  establish¬ 
ment  of  the  court  will  constitute  the  greatest  achievement  in 
the  history  of  nations.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  administers  justice  between  forty-six  States  of  the  same 


37 


nation,  but  the  International  Court  will  administer  justice 
between  forty-six  sovereign  nations.  As  peace  is  maintained 
between  the  States  of  the  Union,  so  shall  it  be  maintained 
between  the  nations  of  the  whole  world.  Thus  disarmament 
of  the  nations  will  follow.  It  will  follow  peace  as  an  effect. 
It  will  hardly  precede  it  as  a  cause.  Armaments  will  disappear 
as  the  nations  see  they  are  no  longer  needed. 

The  question  of  limitation  of  armaments  is  distinct  from 
that  of  disarmament.  The  attempt  to  deal  with  it  at  the  first 
Hague  Conference  failed  completely.  It  was  recognized  as  a 
question  of  immense  difficulty.  It  is  evident  that  the  powers 
of  the  most  expert  actuary  would  be  taxed  to  the  limit  if  he 
should  undertake  to  calculate  the  equivalent  reductions,  naval 
and  military,  between  any  two  of  the  great  powers.  In  the 
call  for  the  second  Hague  Conference  this  subject  was  not 
included  in  the  program.  The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
however,  pressed  the  matter  upon  the  attention  of  the  Confer¬ 
ence.  The  only  result  was  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  declar¬ 
ing  that  it  was  especially  to  be  desired  that  “  the  governments 
should  undertake  again  the  serious  study  of  this  question.” 
But  since  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference  the  policy  of  the 
nations  continues  to  be  the  increase  of  armaments.  No  one 
nation  seems  ready  to  set  an  example  by  limiting  its  own  arma¬ 
ments  in  the  absence  of  some  agreement  with  the  others. 
Each  nation  fears  that  by  so  doing  it  would  place  itself  at  the 
mercy  of  its  rivals.  A  way  must  be  found  by  which  an  inter¬ 
national  agreement  on  this  subject  can  be  reached.  Mr. 
Roosevelt  has  suggested  that  the  great  powers  form  a  League 
of  Peace  and  agree  not  only  to  keep  the  peace  among  them¬ 
selves,  but  to  prevent,  by  force  if  necessary,  its  being  broken 
by  others.  A  League  of  Peace,  if  it  should  be  formed,  would 
result  in  a  limitation  of  armaments.  But  the  formation  of  a 
League  of  Peace  and  the  limitation  of  armaments  may  be 
expected  to  follow,  and  not  precede,  the  establishment  of  an 
international  court  and  of  an  international  police  power  compe¬ 
tent  to  enforce  its  decrees  and  willing  to  prevent  violence  as 
between  nations.  Until  that  result  is  attained  it  will  probably 
be  as  difficult  to  get  the  nations  to  agree  to  enter  a  League  of 
Peace  as  to  limit  armaments. 

That  we  may  better  appreciate  the  present  problem  in  its 
relation  to  the  United  States,  your  attention  is  called  to  the 
appropriations  made  by  the  United  States  government.  For 
the  year  ending  June  30,  1910,  the  appropriations  for  the  army, 


3§ 


fortifications  and  military  academy  amount  to  $i 1 1,897,5  1 5.67  ; 
for  the  navy,  $136,935,199.05  ;  and  for  pensions,  $160,908,000. 
The  total  amount  to  be  expended  during  the  current  fiscal  year 
on  account  of  wars  and  preparations  for  war  aggregates  $409,- 
740,714.72.  Compare  these  figures  with  the  relatively  insig¬ 
nificant  sum  of  $32,007,049,  which  is  the  total  amount  appro¬ 
priated  for  the  use  of  the  executive,  legislative  and  judicial 
departments  of  the  government  during  the  same  period. 

The  total  expenditures  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States  from  its  beginning  in  1789  to  1909  has  been  as  follows  : 
For  war,  $6,699,583,209;  for  navy,  $2,441,572,934;  for  pensions, 
$4,1 55,267,356.  This  aggregates  the  vast  sum  of  $13,296,423,- 
549  expended  for  war  purposes,  as  against  $4,466,068,760 
expended  for  civil  and  miscellaneous  purposes. 

The  average  annual  cost  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the 
United  States  for  the  eight  years  preceding  the  Spanish  War 
was  $51,500,000.  The  average  annual  cost  of  the  army  and 
navy  for  the  eight  years  since  the  Spanish  War  has  been  $185,- 
400,000.  The  average  yearly  increase  in  the  latter  period  as 
compared  with  the  former  has  been  $134,000,000,  making  a 
total  increase  in  eight  years  of  $1,072,000,000  or  360  per  cent. 
This  increase  for  eight  years  exceeds  the  national  debt  by 
$158,000,000.  The  amount  of  all  gifts  to  charities,  libraries, 
educational  institutions  and  other  public  causes  in  1909  in 
this  country  was  $185,000,000,  or  $400,000  less  than  the 
average  annual  cost  for  the  army  and  navy  for  the  past 
eight  years.  What  benefit  has  the  nation  derived  from  all 
this  expenditure  ? 

An  official  report  to  the  Senate  made  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  shows  that  the  cost  of  coal  used  on  our  battleships 
during  the  year  1908,  the  year  of  the  voyage  of  the  fleet 
around  the  world,  was  $3,163,000,  increased  by  transportation 
and  storage  charges  to  $5,544,000. 

There  will  be  two  more  Dreadnaughts  laid  down  this  year 
by  authority  of  Congress,  as  there  were  last  year  and  for  the 
two  years  preceding.  They  will  be  veritable  floating  fortresses. 
It  has  been  said,  I  know  not  with  how  much  truth,  that  they 
will  be  capable  of  delivering  a  force  of  fire  nearly  twice  that  of 
the  best  Dreadnaught  in  the  British  navy  to-day.  Ten  years 
ago  the  “  Connecticut  ”  was  our  greatest  ship,  and  was  capable 
of  delivering  33,600  pounds  of  projectile  in  five  minutes.  The 
new  Dreadnaughts  will  be  capable  of  throwing  112,000  pounds 
in  the  same  time.  The  displacement  of  the  “  Connecticut  ” 


39 


was  16,000  tons.  The  displacement  of  the  new  ships  will  not 
be  less  than  26,000  tons.  At  this  rate  what  are  we  to  expect 
ten  years  hence  ?  It  is  said  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
intends  next  year  asking  for  still  larger  vessels,  and  that  he  has 
plans  tentatively  drawn  for  ships  having  the  gigantic  displace¬ 
ment  of  32,000  tons. 

The  United  States  is  to-day  expending  more  money  for  mili¬ 
tary  and  naval  purposes  and  pensions,  excluding  interest  on  the 
war  debt,  than  any  other  nation,  and  yet  we  profess  to  be  a 
pacific  people.  We  are  the  richest  nation  on  earth,  but  that 
does  not  excuse  waste  and  extravagance.  There  is  not  a  nation 
on  the  face  of  the  globe  that  contemplates  war  with  the  United 
States.  From  the  foundation  of  the  government  no  foreign 
power  has  ever  declared  war  against  us,  and  since  1812  none 
has  committed  aggressions  against  us.  Sixty-five  years  ago, 
when  nearly  eighty-two  per  cent,  of  the  foreign  trade  was  car¬ 
ried  in  American  bottoms,  and  we  had  no  naval  force  in  any 
degree  comparable  with  those  of  the  great  European  powers, 
no  foreign  nation  assailed  us.  Is  it  likely  that  if  war  was 
not  contemplated  then,  it  will  be  undertaken  now,  when 
less  than  ten  per  cent,  of  that  trade  is  carried  by  American 
ships  ? 

Those  who  believe  that  we  need  a  great  navy  to  maintain 
our  possession  of  the  Philippines  against  the  cupidity  of  Japan 
ought  to  explain  why  Japan,  if  she  wanted  those  islands,  did 
not  take  them  from  Spain,  or  at  least  indicate  some  wish  to 
obtain  them.  In  comparison  with  the  United  States,  the  fleet 
of  Spain  was  a  negative  quantity,  her  population  not  one-quarter 
of  ours,  her  wealth  one-twenty-fifth. 

In  conclusion  let  me  say,  what  we  all  know,  that  the  great 
purpose  which  the  Congress  was  called  to  promote  must  work 
its  slow  accomplishment  step  by  step.  Much  has  been  accom¬ 
plished,  and  we  all  understand  that  much  remains  to  be  at¬ 
tained.  The  advocates  of  peace  have  labored  long  and  not 
grown  weary. 

In  his  oration  on  “The  True  Grandeur  of  Nations,”  Sumner 
said  of  the  abolition  of  war,  “  Believe  you  can  do  it  and  you  can 
do  it.”  More  people  than  ever  before  in  history  believe  it  can 
be  done  and  that  it  will  be  done. 

When  the  reign  of  law  shall  be  established  between  nations 
as  it  has  been  established  between  individuals,  who  shall  say  ? 
Emerson  said  in  1859  that  no  one  then  living  would  see  slavery 
abolished.  Here  in  this  Conference  of  the  New  England  States 


40 


we  trust  and  believe  that  the  dream  of  the  New  England  poet 
is  soon  to  be  realized  : 

“  Out  of  the  shadows  of  night 
The  world  rolls  into  light ; 

It  is  daybreak  everywhere.” 


The  President  then  introduced  Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood, 
Secretary  of  the  American  Peace  Society,  who  read  the 
following  paper  : 

LESSONS  FROM  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  PEACE 

MOVEMENT* 

By  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  LL.  D. 

The  international  peace  movement  has  to-day  reached  a  point 
of  development  and  strength  which  makes  it  important  to  con¬ 
sider  carefully  the  lessons  which  its  history  teaches,  that  we 
may  avoid  certain  dangers  to  which  its  very  successes  and 
triumphs  expose  us  at  the  present  time. 

Standing  here  in  New  England,  where  Worcester  and 
Channing,  Ladd  and  Burritt  and  Sumner  and  their  co-laborers 
did  their  heroic  work  in  the  early  days  in  organizing  and 
developing  the  peace  movement ;  here  in  Connecticut,  where 
early  organized  peace  effort  grew  with  extraordinary  rapidity 
and  covered  every  county  in  the  State  by  1835  ;  here  in  Hart¬ 
ford,  where  William  Watson  first  published  the  Advocate  of 
Peace  in  1834,  and  where  the  American  Peace  Society  pitched 
its  tent  for  two  years  on  its  migration  from  New  York  to 
Boston  ;  here  where  Horace  Bushnell  wrote  his  famous  oration 
on  “The  Growth  of  Law,”  and  prophesied  that  law  would  ulti¬ 
mately  eliminate  war  from  human  society ;  here,  not  far  from 
the  place  where  Burritt,  with  his  many  tongues,  and  his  Olive 
Leaf  Mission,  came  near  destroying  the  influence  of  the  Tower 
of  Babel, —  standing  here,  on  holy  ground,  where  the  God  of 
Peace  long  ago  appeared  unto  men,  one  cannot  refrain  from 
asking  what  these  pioneers  of  peace  would  say  and  how  they 
would  feel  if  they  were  with  us  at  this  hour. 

That  Worcester  and  Ladd  and  Burritt,  the  great  New  Eng¬ 
land  trio  of  peace  pioneers,  would  be  surprised  at  what  has 
been  accomplished  in  a  century  is  doubtful.  They  would 
almost  certainly  expect  to  find  much  more  done.  Their  wonder 
would  be  that  men  have  been  so  slow  in  accepting  and  putting 
into  practice  the  international  principles  and  policies  which 


41 


they  advocated  and  believed  to  be  perfectly  reasonable  and 
practicable. 

But  one  may  well  imagine  the  intense  interest  and  pleasure 
with  which  they  would,  nevertheless,  listen  to  the  remarkable 
story  of  the  peace  movement ;  the  story  of  the  growth  of  the 
peace  societies  from  three  in  1815  to  more  than  five  hundred 
at  the  present  time,  and  their  expansion  from  the  narrow 
Atlantic  seaboard  to  all  quarters  of  the  globe  ;  the  successful 
application  of  arbitration,  of  which  they  knew  next  to  nothing 
in  practice,  to  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  important  con¬ 
troversies  in  less  than  a  century,  to  some  of  which  practically 
all  the  important  nations  have  been  parties ;  the  organization 
of  peace  congresses  into  a  regular  yearly  system,  both  national 
and  international,  and  of  special  conferences  like  that  at  Lake 
Mohonk  ;  the  creation  of  an  international  peace  bureau,  which 
brings  all  the  peace  societies  and  congresses  into  harmonious 
cooperation  ;  the  organization  and  most  effective  work  of  the 
Interparliamentary  Union  of  statesmen  for  the  past  twenty-one 
years  ;  the  inception  and  remarkable  development  of  the  Pan- 
American  Union;  the  two  Hague  Conferences,  bringing  together 
in  friendly  council  and  planning  all  the  nations  of  the  world. 

One  can  imagine  William  Ladd  rising  up  and  standing  with 
uncovered  head  as  he  listened  to  the  account  of  the  setting  up 
and  the  successful  operation  of  the  International  Court  of  Ar¬ 
bitration  at  The  Hague  ;  the  conclusion  of  treaties  of  obligatory 
arbitration  to  the  number  of  nearly  one  hundred  between  the 
nations,  two  and  two,  pledging  reference  of  important  classes 
of  disputes  to  the  Hague  Court ;  and  the  laying  of  the  founda¬ 
tions  of  a  world  congress  or  parliament.  Ladd  and  his  co¬ 
workers  would  be  deeply  impressed  with  the  enormous  growth 
of  public  opinion  everywhere  in  favor  of  a  pacified  and  united 
world,  and  with  the  open  and  widespread  demand  on  all  sides 
that  the  system  of  armed  suspicion  and  hostility,  which  has 
ruled  the  world  from  time  immemorial,  shall  cease  and  the  na¬ 
tions  live  henceforth  as  members  of  a  common  family.  It  is  a 
marvelous  story  of  effort  and  accomplishment  which  these 
fathers  of  peace  would  hear  if  they  were  with  us  to-day.  There 
is  almost  nothing  else  like  it  in  the  whole  history  of  human 
progress. 

The  pioneers  of  the  peace  movement  were  men  of  remarkable 
insight,  practical  wisdom  and  unsurpassed  courage.  To  tackle 
deliberately  the  war  system,  hoary  with  centuries  and  en¬ 
trenched  as  it  was  in  the  laws,  customs  and  habits  of  thought 


42 


and  feeling  of  men  everywhere,  with  the  expectation  of  over¬ 
throwing  and  finally  destroying  it,  required  a  type  of  faith  and 
heroism  rarely  found.  What  does  their  example  and  the  fruit 

of  their  planting  and  training  teach  us  ? 

They  were  first  of  all  idealists,  thorough-going  idealists,  as 
all  men  must  be  who  move  and  lift  the  world.  There  are  no 
really  practical  men  except  idealists.  They  saw  clearly  what 
the  nations  ought  to  be  in  their  relations  to  one  another,  what 
the  moral  and  social  constitution  of  men  and  of  societies  of 
men  demands  as  the  true  human  state.  They  saw  in  the  future 
an  era  without  war ;  what  the  Germans  call,  in  their  splendid 
phrase,  “ Die  Krieglose  Zeit They  proclaimed  this  ideal  in¬ 
ternational  condition  as  an  obligation,  the  fulfillment  of  which, 
as  fast  as  possible,  was  incumbent  upon  all  men  and  nations. 
They  further  saw  that  the  war  system,  as  it  had  come  down 
out  of  the  past,  was  in  its  spirit  and  in  its  deeds  and  results 
totally  at  variance  with  this  ideal,  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  the  attainment  of  the  union  of  the  nations  and  races  ; 
that  it  was  indeed  the  very  antithesis,  the  denial,  the  wreck  of 
the  normal,  the  predestined  life  of  the  world.  They  therefore 
arraigned  it  as  both  senseless  and  wicked,  as  the  fruitful  source 
of  cruelty  and  injustice,  as  morally  and  economically  ruinous. 
They  saw  that  war  was  hell  long  before  General  Sherman  was 
born,  though  they  expressed  it  in  somewhat  different  phraseol¬ 
ogy.  Thus  far  their  idealism  carried  them,  both  positively  and 
negatively. 

These  early  advocates  of  peace  have  been  criticised  as  too 
sentimental ;  as  dwelling  too  much  on  the  horrors  and  cruelties, 
the  savage  ferocities  of  war.  But  they  had  to  do  it ;  otherwise 
their  idealism  would  have  been  only  half  expressed.  It  is  not 
certain  but  that  a  good  deal  of  the  same  kind  of  treatment  is 
still  needed,  unpleasant  as  it  is  to  our  modern  minds,  for  the 
legend  of  the  “righteousness”  and  the  “glory”  of  war  still 
lingers  and  deludes  many  souls. 

But  Dodge  and  Worcester  and  Ladd  and  Burritt  and  the  rest 
of  them  were  also  thoroughly  practical  men.  They  did  not 
naively  assume  that  the  warring  world  could  be  saved  by 
merely  proclaiming  the  ideal  and  condemning  the  actual  condi¬ 
tion  of  things.  They  did  not  go  quite  as  far  as  Emerson, 
who  said,  in  substance,  that  if  you  will  only  launch  an  idea 
it  will  do .  the  rest  itself.  They  saw  that  a  large  program  of 
practical  peace  work  was  necessary,  and  this  they  inaugurated 
at  once. 


43 


First  of  all,  they  started  a  campaign  of  education,  by  both 
tongue  and  pen,  on  the  platform,  in  the  pulpit  and  in  the  press, 
that  public  opinion  might  be  won  to  the  new  views ;  and  no 
more  intelligent,  vigorous  and  well-sustained  campaign  of  reform 
has  ever  been  carried  on  in  the  interest  of  any  cause.  This  first 
compaign  continued  for  more  than  forty  years,  till  the  Civil 
War  began  to  throw  its  dark  shadow  over  the  land.  Many  of 
the  foremost  men  of  the  country,  then  largely  on  the  Atlantic 
Coast,  engaged  in  it.  Among  them  were  Dodge,  Worcester, 
Channing,  Ladd,  President  Kirkland  of  Harvard,  Whittier 
Garrison,  Burritt,  Upham,  Walker,  May,  Blanchard,  the  Tap- 
pans,  Ballou,  Henry  C.  Wright,  Dr.  Joseph  Allen,  Thomas  S. 
Grimke,  Charles  Sumner,  Judge  Jay  and  many  others.  These 
men  left  practically  nothing  new  to  be  said  on  the  subject. 
Their  speeches  and  writings  —  the  pamphlets  of  Dodge  Wor- 
cester’s  “  Friend  of  Peace,”  the  essays  of  Ladd,  the  addresses 
ot  Channing,  the  orations  of  Sumner,  the  essay  of  Emerson,  the 
Manual  of  Upham,  the  papers  and  books  of  Judge  Jay  —  remain 
to  us  as  a  great  and  permanent  literature  produced  by  that 
period,  without  which  we  modern  workers  would  be  poor  indeed 
in  our  outfit.  By  1840  the  whole  subject  of  a  congress  and 
court  of  nations  had  been  presented  and  clearly  and  exhaustively 
expounded  by  them,  along  substantially  the  lines  that  the  Hague 
Conferences  have  followed.  No  movement  was  ever  better 
launched  than  the  peace  movement.  It  sprang  almost  full- 

fledged  from  the  brains  of  these  men,  like  Minerva  from  the 
head  of  Jupiter. 

.  Along  with,  or  rather  as  a  part  of,  their  campaign  of  educat- 
mg  public  sentiment,  these  peace  pioneers  began  at  once  to 
present  and  urge  upon  the  governments  of  the  world  substitutes 
for  war.  .  Arbitration,  with  its  concomitants,  was  almost  as 
common  in  their  mouths  as  it  is  in  ours.  Not  only  in  their 
public  addresses  and  in  pamphlets  and  periodical  publications 
did  they  urge  this  rational  method  of  adjusting  disputes,  but 
also  in  memorials  to  our  government.  As  early  as  1816,  the 
year  after  its  establishment,  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society 
sent  a  remarkable  memorial  to  Washington,  in  which  it  urged 
the  Congress  to  institute  a  deliberate  inquiry  with  a  view  of 
ascertaining  how  the  government  might  exert  a  pacific  influence 
on  human  affairs  ;  how  it  might  help  to  infuse  into  interna¬ 
tional  law  a  pacific  spirit ;  how  it  might  aid  in  diminishing  the 
frequency,  or  in  circumscribing  the  calamities,  of  war;  how  it 
might  promote  the  general  reference  of  controversies  to  an 


44 


impartial  umpire  as  the  law  of  the  Christian  world,  and  might 
promote  compacts  “for  the  express  purpose  of  reducing  the 
enormous  and  ruinous  extent  of  military  establishments.”  That 
all  sounds  very  recent  and  shows  how  far  in  advance  of  their 
time  these  men  were.  But  they  did  not  stop  with  these  gen¬ 
eral  recommendations.  They  urged  the  establishment  of  a 
world  congress,  or  parliament,  as  the  organ  of  the  joint  life  of 
the  nations.  They  advocated  also  the  creation  of  a  high  court 
of  nations  for  the  judicial  settlement  of  controversies.  The  first 
plan  of  the  nineteenth  century  for  an  international  tribunal  was 
not  worked  out  by  the  Hague  Conferences,  not  by  any  Bar 
Association,  not  by  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  but  by  a 
group  of  New  England  men  as  early  as  1840,  of  whom  William 
Ladd  was  the  chief. 

The  lines  of  work  and  influence  thus  inaugurated  have  been 
substantially  followed  ever  since  by  the  workers  for  peace,  not 
only  in  this  but  in  all  countries.  As  far  as  circumstances  have 
permitted,  they  have  all  been  kept  up  and  pushed  at  the  same 
time.  No  one  phase  of  the  subject  has,  as  a  rule,  been  empha¬ 
sized  at  the  expense  of  others.  The  supreme  importance  of  a 
widespread  peace  public  opinion  has  been  kept  always  in  mind. 
Every  effort  possible,  with  the  limited  resources  at  hand,  has 
been  put  forth  to  educate  and  concentrate  public  sentiment  in 
behalf  of  the  great  ends  sought.  The  advocates  of  peace  have 
always,  with  Dr.  Channing  and  Horace  Bushnell,  recognized 
the  truth  that  public  opinion  rules  the  world.  International 
justice,  friendship  and  mutual  service  have  always  been  con¬ 
tended  for.  The  arbitration  of  all  differences  between  nations 
has  been  urged  and  urged  again,  until  this  method  of  settle¬ 
ment  has  finally  become  the  settled  practice  of  the  world,  though 
not  yet  fully  embodied  in  the  law  of  nations.  A  permanent 
international  court  of  justice  as  superior  to  and  to  take  the  place 
of  temporary  tribunals  of  arbitration  has  been  urged  from  the 
beginning.  A  world  assembly  or  parliament  for  the  handling 
of  the  great  interests  common  to  the  nations  has  been  the  object 
of  a  vast  amount  of  thought  and  special  effort.  The  irration¬ 
ality  and  iniquity  of  great  military  and  naval  establishments, 
with  their  unceasing,  increasing  and  ruinous  burdens  upon  the 
people,  have  been  faithfully  and  unequivocally  pointed  out. 
Government  consideration  of  all  these  problems  and  action 
upon  them  has  been  urged,  time  and  again,  as  the  only 
possible  way  in  which  the  aims  of  the  friends  of  peace  can  be 
at  last  attained. 


45 


This,  without  going  into  further  details,  of  which  there  are 
many  most  interesting  ones,  has  been  the  program  of  the 
peace  movement  for  a  hundred  years.  It  is  the  necessary 
program  still.  There  is  almost  no  phase  of  it  which  can  yet  be 
dropped.  Public  opinion  —  much  of  it  at  any  rate  —  is  still 
very  benighted  and  reactionary  about  the  movement.  Many 
intelligent  men,  intelligent  in  other  respects,  know  nothing 
about  the  cause  in  which  we  are  laboring,  and  practically 
nothing  about  what  has  been  accomplished  through  the  Hague 
Conferences. 

Though  the  arbitration  of  disputes  is  now  the  regular  order, 
nearly  all  the  governments  persist  in  refusing  to  agree  to  sub¬ 
mit  (though  they  actually  do  submit)  questions  of  “honor” 
and  “vital  interests  ”  to  the  Hague  Court.  In  spite  of  Presi¬ 
dent  Taft’s  most  important  utterance  on  this  subject  recently, 
they  seem  likely  to  persist  in  this  refusal  for  some  time  yet. 
A  general  treaty  of  obligatory  arbitration,  to  be  signed  by  all 
the  nations  and  including  all  questions  of  difference  between 
governments,  still  remains  to  be  concluded,  though  great  ad¬ 
vance  toward  this  accomplishment  was  made  at  the  second 
Hague  Conference.  The  creation  of  a  periodic  congress  or 
parliament  of  the  nations  is  as  yet  only  in  its  incipiency.  What 
was  accomplished  in  this  direction  at  The  Hague  in  1907  leaves 
much  yet  to  be  done.  Though  the  second  Hague  Conference 
voted  its  unanimous  approval  of  the  principle  of  an  interna¬ 
tional  high  court  of  justice,  the  actual  selection  of  the  judges 
and  the  inauguration  of  the  Court  does  not  seem  to  be  immedi¬ 
ately  in  sight,  notwithstanding  the  most  important  and  hopeful 
efforts  now  being  made  by  our  Department  of  State.  In  the 
matter  of  arrest  of  the  prevailing  rivalry  in  armaments,  espe¬ 
cially  in  battleship  building,  the  goal  of  our  efforts  seems  still 
farther  away.  The  old  suspicions  and  jealousies  and  animosi¬ 
ties  lying  behind  these  armaments  die  very  hard,  and  before  we 
can  see  any  relief  from  the  enormous  burdens  imposed  upon  the 
people  by  these  great  establishments,  a  great  deal  of  thorough¬ 
going  work  in  the  transformation  of  national  and  racial  feelings, 
prejudices  and  delusions  must  still  be  done. 

It  behooves  the  peace  party  of  this  country,  indeed  of  all 
countries,  to  be  true  to  all  the  great  lines  of  this  historic  pro¬ 
gram.  None  of  them  can  be  neglected  without  crippling  and 
retarding  the  whole  movement.  It  behooves  us  also  to  be 
patient  and  steady,  as  well  as  active  and  energetic.  There  is 
no  short  cut  to  peace.  I  sympathize  with  those  of  our  friends, 


46 


some  of  them  among  the  noblest  supporters  of  the  cause,  who, 
inspired  by  the  marvelous  advance  already  made,  as  well  as  by 
a  deep  sense  of  the  obligations  of  the  hour  in  the  presence  of 
the  appalling  growth  of  war  preparations,  are  impatient  to  see 
a  bold  stroke  made  and  the  whole  movement  brought  to  a  sud¬ 
den  end,  and  war  banished  from  the  earth  “by  one  fell  swoop.” 
But  nothing  that  has  been  done  toward  the  permanent  peace 
of  the  world  has  been  accomplished  by  force  and  violence. 
Nothing  can  be  done.  It  is  too  late  now  to  resort,  in  the  in¬ 
terests  of  peace,  to  the  very  agency  which  brought  on  war  and 
has  kept  it  in  the  world.  No  nation  or  group  of  nations,  led 
by  no  matter  whom,  can  force  peace  upon  the  world.  Any 
such  peace  would  go  to  pieces  almost  as  soon  as  made.  “  Force 
is  no  remedy,”  as  John  Bright  was  accustomed  to  say.  The 
nations,  large  and  small  alike,  are  vitally  interested  in  the  mat¬ 
ter.  Whatever  agency  or  method  is  adopted  to  banish  war  and 
to  bring  in  finally  the  reign  of  universal  and  permanent  peace, 
must  be  one  in  which  every  nation  can  heartily  join,  and  in 
which  no  one,  not  even  the  least  of  them,  shall  feel  that  it  has 
been  forced  against  its  will. 

These  are  the  great  lessons  which  the  history  of  the  peace 
movement  teaches.  We  shall  do  well  to  lay  them  all  seriously 
to  heart,  as  we  enter  upon  what  we  hope  is  to  be  the  final  stage 
of  the  greatest  movement  which  ever  engaged  the  thoughts 

and  the  activities  of  men. 

- ,  • 

Before  the  meeting  adjourned  a  committee  of  five,  with 
power  to  add  to  its  number,  was  appointed  to  draw  up  resolu¬ 
tions.  After  adjournment  the  delegates  were  photographed  on 
the  steps  of  the  State  House,  and  were  given  a  reception  and 
tea  in  Center  Church  House,  the  people  of  Hartford  and  New 
Britain  assisting  the  committee  in  making  the  strangers 
welcome. 

During  the  day,  which  was  partly  taken  up  with  the  details 
of  registration,  speakers  from  the  Congress  visited  the  public 
schools  of  Hartford  and  New  Britain.  Practically  all  the  grades 
above  the  third  and  fourth  were  brought  together  in  the  large 
assembly  halls  of  the  schools,  in  some  cases  as  many  as  six 
hundred  pupils  being  in  attendance.  Dr.  Trueblood  addressed 
fourteen  hundred  pupils  in  the  Hartford  High  School.  Mr. 
Beals,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Mead,  Mrs.  Andrews  and  others  assisted 
in  the  work  among  the  schools.  Religious  and  musical  exer¬ 
cises  previously  arranged  by  a  sympathetic  body  of  teachers 


47 


accompanied  the  speaking.  At  the  regular  sessions  of  the 
Congress  it  was  a  familiar  sight  to  see  pupils  who  had  been 
delegated  from  different  schools  taking  notes  on  the  addresses 
in  order  to  report  them  to  their  classes.  The  indirect  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  Congress  upon  the  minds  of  the  young  people  and 
in  their  homes  thus  became  an  important  part  of  its  value  in  the 
vicinity  of  Haitford. 


Center  Church,  Monday  Evening,  May  10,  at  8  o'clock* 

Professor  Melancthon  W.  Jacobus,  Dean  of  the 
Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  Presiding. 

In  the  evening  a  general  meeting  was  held  at  the  Center 
Church,  at  which  Dr.  Jacobus  of  the  Hartford  Theological  Sem¬ 
inary  presided.  He  gave  an  interesting  account  of  a  visit  which 
he  had  made  to  The  Hague,  coincident  with  a  meeting  of  the 
Court,  at  which  one  of  the  cases  which  it  had  decided  was  under 
consideration.  The  very  simplicity  of  the  proceedings  had  im¬ 
pressed  him  with  the  profoundness  of  the  peace  movement. 
He  called  attention  to  the  moral  degeneracy  as  well  as  to  the 
loss  and  destruction  caused  by  war,  and  said  that  the  only  plea 
for  battleships  and  armies  is  the  plea  that  they  may  not  be 
used. 

Letters  were  then  read  from  President  Taft,  expressing  belief 
in  peace,  but  not  in  giving  up  the  army  or  the  navy,  which,  he 
thought,  tended  to  preserve  peace  ;  from  Ambassador  Bryce, 
emphasizing  the  importance  of  the  peace  movement  and  de¬ 
ploring  the  present  ruinous  policy  of  building  great  arma¬ 
ments  ;  from  Secretary  of  State  Knox,  pointing  to  the  Court 
of  Arbitral  Justice  as  a  great  step  taken  towards  permanent 
peace;  horn  ex-Vice-President  Fairbanks,  indicating,  as  is  well 
known  from  his  recent  speeches,  his  sympathy  with  the  ob¬ 
jects  of  the  Congress  ;  from  William  J.  Bryan,  urging  an  in¬ 
ternational  agreement  providing  for  commissions  of  inquiry  to 
investigate  and  report  on  the  facts  in  every  case  of  dispute 
between  nations  before  hostilities  are  engaged  in, —  the  same 
measure  advocated  by  him  at  the  meeting  of  the  Interpar¬ 
liamentary  Union  in  London  in  1906;  and  from  Samuel 
Gompers,  stating  that  organized  labor  stands  for  peace,  in¬ 
dividual  as  well  as  national,  carping  critics  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding. 


48 


Hon.  Jackson  H.  Ralston  of  Washington  was  then  intro¬ 
duced  and  gave  the  following  address  : 

SOME  SUPPOSED  JUST  CAUSES  OF  WAR* 

Hon.  Jackson  H.  Ralston,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Diplomatists  and  statesmen  —  we  must  mention  both,  for  all 
diplomatists  are  not  statesmen  and  all  statesmen  are  not  diplo¬ 
matists  —  agree  often,  and  so  express  themselves  in  treaties, 
that  for  honor  and  vital  interests  nations  may  wage  what  is 
dignified  by  the  title  of  “solemn  war”  ;  and  they  must  be  per¬ 
mitted  so  to  do,  at  their  good  pleasure,  even  though  the  doors 
of  the  Hague  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  swing  freely  upon  their 
hinges  and  possible  judges  await  the  sound  of  the  footsteps  of 
the  representatives  of  litigant  states.  Honor  and  vital  inter¬ 
ests —  how  sonorous  these  words  sound!  Resolve  them  into 
their  elements,  passion,  avarice,  commercial  and  territorial 
aggrandizement,  and  the  result  is  verbiage  so  crude  as  to  grate 
upon  modern  susceptibilities.  Let  us  continue  to  use  grand 
words  to  conceal  ignoble  thoughts! 

But  it  is  only  those  aggregations  of  human  units  that  we  call 
nations  that  may  without  crime  and  without  judicial  punish¬ 
ment  slay,  burn,  rob  and  destroy.  Why  this  logically  should  be 
the  case  we  are  at  a  loss  to  understand.  Why  the  inherent 
rights  of  the  individual  to  determine  such  questions  as  concern 
his  honor  or  vital  interests  should  be  mercilessly  abridged,  and 
why  cities  and  towns,  and  not  nations,  should  be  deprived  of  the 
full  and  free  exercise  of  their  most  violent  passions,  one  is 
unable  to  comprehend.  Should  not  the  power  of  both  city  and 
nation,  or  else  of  neither,  be  submitted  to  the  ruling  care  of  the 
judiciary?  Is  there  anything  peculiar  about  the  situation  of  a 
city  or  of  a  state  which  should  deprive  them  of  the  free  exer¬ 
cise  of  their  faculties  ?  Let  us  examine  into  the  question  by 
considering  first  a  couple  of  supposititious  cases,  either  of  which 
may  find  its  full  parallel  in  history,  and  offering  a  justification 
for  war  fully  as  well  founded  as  the  justification  furnished  for 
the  wars  of  the  past  between  nations. 

New  York,  as  we  all  know,  is  a  great  collection  of  human 
beings,  greater  than  was  boasted  by  all  the  cities  of  Greece,  of 
whose  wars  we  read  with  sanguinary  pleasure ;  greater  than 
Rome  possessed  after  she  had  subdued  all  Italy,  or  even  after 
she  had  conquered  the  ancient  known  world.  New  York  is 
overflowing  her  civic  boundaries  into  New  Jersey,  even  as  Japan 


49 


is  overflowing  hers  into  Korea  or  Manchuria.  Let  us  listen 
to  the  musings  of  a  future  chieftain  of  Tammany  Hall  whose 
domain  is  co-extensive  with  that  of  Greater  New  York.  He 
says  : 

“  New  York  is  imperial,  and  every  New  Yorker  feels  the  glow  of  patriotic  pride 
when  he  gazes  on  the  vast  fleets  coming  from  all  quarters  of  the  globe  to  share 
in  the  profits  of  her  commerce.  The  bosom  of  every  home-loving  New  Yorker 
must  swell  with  pride  as  he  contemplates  her  magnificent  structures,  at  once  index 
and  emblem  of  her  greatness.  Here  liberty  reigns,  here  the  son  of  the  poorest 
immigrant,  as  illustrated  in  my  own  person,  may  become  ruler.  But  with  all  this 
New  York  is  in  her  swaddling  clothes.  Imaginary  lines  bound  her  on  the  north, 
while  to  the  west  the  jurisdiction  of  the  city  is  limited  by  the  North  River,  beyond 
which  a  New  Yorker  may  not  go  without  being  in  danger  of  losing  his  political 
allegiance  and  being  absorbed  by  an  alien  community.  Every  patriotic  instinct 
demands  that  New  York  should  extend  her  boundaries  so  that  her  sons  may  have 
room  in  which  to  live  and  contribute  to  the  glory  of  their  native  State.” 

And  with  all  a  subconscious  voice  whispers,  “  Let  this  come 
to  pass  and  greater  will  be  Tammany  and  more  luscious  the 
spoils  thereof.” 

What  more  effective  appeal  to  true  patriotism  could  be  made! 
And  when  you  add  the  promise  to  the  valiant  son  of  the  Bowery 
or  the  Harlem  that  the  rich  lands  of  the  Jerseys  shall  be  theirs, 
that  the  superabundance  of  their  neighbors  in  cows  and  corn 
and  strawberries  shall  be  their  abundance,  can  you  not  imagine 
with  what  fervor  the  embattled  warriors  of  Yorkville  and  the 
Bronx,  the  Bowery  and  the  Battery  would  fall  upon  their 
weaker  neighbors  across  the  North  River  and  openly  put  to 
the  sword  each  offending  owner  of  a  herd  of  cows  —  Jersey 
preferred  —  or  a  promising  strawberry  patch  ?  And  the  cause 
of  war,  that  is,  the  ostensible  cause  of  war?  No  matter.  Per¬ 
haps  a  bibulous  New  Yorker,  suffering  from  the  Sunday  drought 
of  his  city  and  seeking  consolation  in  Hoboken,  has  been  ar¬ 
rested  somewhat  roughly  and  given  a  disagreeable  sample  of 
Jersey  justice,  against  which  every  city-loving  citizen  of  Man¬ 
hattan  raises  protest  and  cries  for  war.  Anything  will  do  as 
long  as  the  desire  exists  for  dominion  over  rich  lands  across 
the  river;  as  long,  in  other  words,  as  the  “vital  interests”  of 
New  York  rulers  —  money  always  being  vital  —  demands  an 
extension  of  New  York’s  power.  And  now  that  we  have  the 
honor  of  New  York  assailed  in  the  person  of  her  intoxicated 
citizen,  vital  interests  compel  war. 

And  yet  we  live  in  such  an  unmanly,  effete  and  degenerate 
age  and  country  that  should  the  mighty  cohorts  of  Tammany, 
desisting  from  the  milder  pleasures  of  Coney  Island,  advance 
upon  New  Jersey,  the  United  States,  whose  peace  had  been 
disturbed,  would  speedily  put  them  to  rout. 


50 


But,  withal,  reason  would  rest  with  the  Tammany  chieftain. 
His  orators  could  with  propriety  contend  that  the  entity  that 
he  represents  was  old  enough,  big  enough,  rich  enough,  to  be 
allowed  to  fight  without  foreign  interference.  With  patriotic 
pride  could  they  point  to  examples  of  cities  less  important 
whose  struggles,  based  upon  identical  principles,  occupy  many 
interesting  and  laudatory  pages  of  history.  With  swelling 
pride  could  they  repel  the  idea  that  Californians  and  Ken¬ 
tuckians  and  Vermonters,  having  no  knowledge  of  or  sympathy 
with  their  patriotic  aspirations,  should  band  themselves  together 
to  subdue  the  manly  New  Yorker,  struggling  only  to  advance 
his  peculiar  civilization. 

Their  logic — from  the  standpoint  of  the  Englishman  subduing 
the  Boers,  the  Japanese  seizing  Manchuria,  yea,  the  American 
pursuing  the  Filipino  or  forcing  him  to  take  false  oaths  of 
allegiance  —  would  be  irresistible.  But  logic  does  not  always 
rule,  and  the  New  Yorker  would  find  that,  save  by  the  permis¬ 
sion  of  the  Jerseyites,  and  with  the  leave  of  yokel  representa¬ 
tives  gathered  in  Congress  from  all  parts  of  the  Union  and  the 
consent  of  New  York’s  Legislature,  the  rule  of  Tammany  must 
remain  confined  to  such  parts  of  the  State  of  New  York  as  the 
State  authorities  shall  permit. 

But  let  us  approach  the  problem  from  another  point  of  view. 
Great  as  is  New  York,  let  us  imagine  that  Boston  rivals  her  in 
the  commerce  of  the  world  ;  that  every  favoring  breeze  brings 
to  Boston  the  largess  of  the  whole  globe  ;  that,  despite  all  of 
Gotham’s  efforts,  Boston’s  growing  commercial  advantages 
directly  affect  New  York,  whose  rent  rolls  steadily  diminish. 
Figure  to  yourselves  that  there  arises  a  new  Cato,  whose  morn¬ 
ing  and  evening  editions  print  at  their  top,  in  blood-red  letters, 
“  Delenda  est  Boston .”  The  public  mind  becomes  attuned  to 
the  cry.  In  an  unlucky  moment,  a  Bostonian  in  New  York, 
whose  unhappy  pronunciation  of  the  letter  “  A  ”  reveals  his 
origin,  becomes  involved  in  difficulties  necessitating  a  visit  to 
the  Tombs.  Boston  peremptorily  demands  his  release.  New 
York  scornfully  refuses,  and  New  Yorkers  are  insulted  by  Bos¬ 
ton’s  wrathful  rejoinder.  Here,  again,  honor  and  vital  interests 
demand  blood,  and  under  the  old,  logical  rule  the  solemn  arbit¬ 
rament  of  war  must  determine  the  issue.  Alas  !  Once  more 
the  men  of  other  cities,  heedless  of  the  honor  of  the  two  cities 
and  blind  to  all  interests  save  their  own,  step  forward  and  for¬ 
bid  resort  to  any  other  instrumentality  than  the  artificial  one 
of  courts,  if  a  legal  injury  may  be  said  to  exist.  Alas,  again, 


5i 


the  insult  to  the  honor  of  the  two  cities  does  not  constitute  an 
injury  of  sufficient  gravity  to  be  considered  by  any  national 
court. 

But  if  these  suggestions  seem  the  wild  vagaries  of  imagina¬ 
tion,  let  us  take  more  concrete  examples.  The  drainage  of  the 
city  of  Chicago  pours  itself  out  into  the  Illinois  River,  and 
diagonally  across  the  state  the  current  flows  to  join  the  purer 
waters  of  the  Mississippi.  Soon  the  flood  reaches  St.  Louis, 
and  endangers  the  integrity  of  its  water  supply.  Shall  not 
every  stalwart  Missourian  who  feels  his  bosom  beat  with  love 
for  his  State  fly  to  arms,  and,  fortified  with  the  products  of  the 
breweries  of  his  great  city,  cross  the  Mississippi  and  relentlessly 
fall  upon  the  luckless  citizens  of  the  State  of  Illinois  ?  Shall 
the  health,  the  comfort,  the  prosperity  of  Missouri  be  ruth¬ 
lessly  attacked  by  a  neighboring  State  and  the  injury  not  be 
wiped  out  in  blood  ?  Must  the  Missourian  stand  supinely  by 
while  the  population  of  his  State  becomes  decimated  by  disease, 
set  at  work  by  the  carelessness  of  people  alien  to  his  State 
government,  and  whose  actions  have  conclusively  shown  their 
lack  of  courtesy  and  civilization  ?  Are  not  such  people  worse 
even  than  persons  whose  skins  are  black  or  perhaps  yellow? 
Is  it  not  the  high  mission  of  St.  Louis  to  carry  civilization  even 
to  the  banks  of  the  Sangamon  ?  Is  it  not  part  of  the  Missou¬ 
rian’s  share  of  the  burthen  of  humanity  to  teach  the  true  gos¬ 
pel  of  the  golden  rule  to  the  backward  denizens  of  Pike,  Cook 
and  Jo  Davies  Counties  ?  Must  not  these  questions  be  an¬ 
swered  in  the  affirmative  but  for  the  fact  that  Missouri  and 
Illinois  recognize  as  a  common  superior  an  artificial  entity  called 
the  United  States,  which  forbids  such  war  and  relegates  both 
parties  to  peaceful  courts,  where,  with  the  assistance  of  bacteri¬ 
ologists,  lawyers  and  judges,  the  issues  are  fought  out  without 
the  pomp  or  circumstance  of  war  ?  Are  we  not  indeed  living 
in  a  dull,  uneventful  age,  and  inflicting  upon  the  young  men  of 
both  states  the  canker  of  peace  ?  But  once  again  the  logic  of 
war  is  denied  and  the  manly  virtues  remain  undeveloped. 

Yet  another  illustration.  The  State  of  Kansas  contends  that 
the  waters  descending  from  the  mountains  of  Colorado  should 
be  allowed  by  Colorado’s  citizens  to  pursue  their  way  unvexed 
and  undiminished,  to  render  more  fertile  the  plains  of  the 
Sunflower  State.  The  vital  interest  of  the  States  collide. 
Shall  the  interests  of  bleeding  Kansas  be  allowed  to  suffer 
because  of  the  selfish  and  grasping  policy  of  the  men  of 
Colorado?  Let  us  invoke  the  soul  of  John  Brown,  and,  as  it 


52 


goes  marching  on,  let  the  Kansans  march  upon  the  sons  of  the 
Centennial  State  and  slaughter  them  until  they  learn  how  to 
live  and  let  live.  Alas  !  once  more  war,  which,  like  poverty,  is 
justified  because  we  have  always  had  it,  and  the  contrary  is 
against  human  nature,  is  suppressed,  and  the  great  sovereign 
States  of  Kansas  and  Colorado  are  forced  to  bow  to  the  dictates 
of  nine  men  in  black  robes,  only  one  of  whom,  and  he  by  chance, 
happens  to  be  a  citizen  of  either  State. 

I  have  given  you  two  imaginary  and  two  actual  illustrations 
of  circumstances  which,  by  all  the  books,  would  justify  war. 
In  two  cases  honor  dictates,  and  in  all  four  vital  interests  de¬ 
mand  it.  The  only  restraining  power  is  that  the  contending 
parties  are,  in  each  case,  subject  to  the  control  of  a  judicial 
body.  In  vain  could  any  of  the  States  named  declare  their 
right  to  determine  for  themselves  what  was  needed  to  satisfy 
their  own  honor  or  to  maintain  their  own  true  interests.  Al¬ 
ways  their  neighbors  insist  upon  their  own  superior  right  to 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  continent. 

But  so  little  civilized  are  we  internationally  that  books  are 
written  about  the  rules  of  war,  that  the  right  of  blockade  is 
recognized  between  nations,  that  because  of  brawls  with  which 
no  outside  party  has  any  concern  the  commerce  of  neutrals  is 
interfered  with,  the  property  of  their  citizens  often  exposed  to 
the  ravages  of  war  on  land,  while  neutral  governments,  unlike 
the  onlookers  at  a  street  fight,  who  content  themselves  with 
making  a  ring  about  the  contestants,  accept  limitations  upon 
their  own  conduct  made  by  the  fighters  themselves.  Can  we 
not  learn  that  there  is  no  more  dignity,  no  more  glory  about  a 
national  conflict,  about  a  national  dispute,  than  there  is  in  a  duel 
between  two  neighbors  over  the  proper  placing  of  a  line  fence  ? 

And  if  the  well-being  of  the  community  demands  that  the 
quarrels  of  neighbors  shall  be  determined  by  a  legal  court,  if 
the  rivalries  of  cities  and  states  must  find  in  this  country  their 
settlement  in  dispassionate  tribunals,  why  should  there  not  be, 
judicially  at  least,  the  United  States  of  the  World,  with  a  tri¬ 
bunal  capable  of  passing  upon  all  international  questions  without 
restrictions  ? 

We  may  here  pride  ourselves  on  believing  that  we  are  going 
with  the  swing  of  international  feeling ;  that  with  the  spread 
of  intelligence,  with  a  greater  recognition  of  the  equality  of 
human  beings,  which  in  the  last  analysis  denies  the  right  of 
one  man  to  require  another  to  sacrifice  his  life  and  property 
without  just  cause,  duly  ascertained  by  cold  and  competent 


53 


tribunals,  there  must  come  a  time  when  war  will  be  looked 
upon  as  the  crime  that  it  is. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  I  am  unappreciative  of  the  dignity  of 
war  and  of  the  importance  of  the  causes  leading  up  to  it.  War 
has  no  dignity.  It  offers  a  tragedy  and  a  farce.  With  the 
tragic  element  we  are  all  too  familiar.  With  the  farce  of  it  all 
we  are  less  familiar,  for  it  is  one  of  those  obvious  things,  so 
obvious  and  so  accustomed  that,  like  the  movement  of  the  earth 
around  the  sun,  eons  of  time  pass  by  without  its  realization. 
What  can  be  more  farcical  than  that  human  beings  should  be 
dressed  up  in  gold  lace  and  waving  plumes  to  go  forth  to  slay 
other  human  beings  in  waving  plumes  and  gold  lace  ?  Why 
should  bearskin  shakos  be  used  to  add  ferocity  to  their  ensemble? 
Why  should  the  common  people,  whose  interest  in  the  matter 
is  nil,  make  themselves  food  for  powder,  all  for  the  benefit  of 
the  few  whose  tinsel  decorations  blind  their  own  eyes  and 
those  of  the  beholders  ?  And  why  should  parents  who  love 
their  offspring  rush  into  opportunities  of  bequeathing  to  them 
legacies  of  national  poverty  and  debt  as  the  result  of  a  display 
of  passion  on  the  part  of  their  ancestors  ?  And  when  all  this  is 
the  work  of  sentient  human  beings,  may  we  not  wonder  over 
their  effrontery  in  speaking  of  themselves  as  reasoning  creat¬ 
ures  ?  May  we  not  conceive  of  a  real  philosopher  looking  down 
at  our  bloody  antics  over  baubles  with  wondering  and  puzzled 
contempt  and  amusement  ? 

For  as  yet  we  are  but  children  and  have  the  ways  of  children. 
Between  the  childish  disputes  —  “It  is,”  “It  isn’t,”  or  “I 
want  to  swing,”  “No,  I  won’t  let  you  swing” — and  the  aver¬ 
age  differences  between  nations  leading  to  war  there  is  in  es¬ 
sence  no  difference  ;  nothing  save  the  age  and  number  of  the 
disputants  and  the  consequent  variance  in  the  objects  which 
interest  them.  Relatively  the  contest  is  unchanged,  and  equally 
it  should  be  adjusted  without  killing  and  without  the  slow 
sapping  away  of  life  through  taxation. 

But  if  you  tell  me  that  such  doctrines  as  I  have  tried  to  set 
out  are  opposed  to  patriotism,  let  me  say  to  you  that  patriotism 
is  not  a  fixed,  but  a  growing  term.  When  the  first  Englishmen 
planted  themselves  on  the  borders  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  their 
patriotism  was  bounded  by  the  fringe  of  woods  concealing 
Indian  enemies.  Later,  their  patriotism  meant  a  special  sense 
of  duty  to  those  within  the  widening  boundaries  of  the  Provinces. 
Yet  a  few  years,  and  with  the  birth  of  a  new  nation,  all  who 
lived  within  the  bounds  of  the  thirteen  original  States  were 


54 


recognized  as  their  brothers.  Then,  by  leaps  and  bounds,  it 
came  to  pass  that  the  teeming  millions  of  human  beings  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  represented  the  solidarity  of  the 
country,  and  all  were  recognized  as  brothers  under  a  common 
flag ;  and  between  such  brothers  war  was  a  crime,  and  all 
troubles  were  to  be  determined  in  a  peaceful  manner. 

But  one  step  is  left.  We  have  to  recognize  the  brotherhood 
of  the  human  race  and  the  infinite  crime  of  bloody  contests 
between  members  of  a  common  family.  When  the  day  of  such 
recognition  arrives,  we  shall  love  our  immediate  neighbors  no 
less  and  for  them  reserve  the  special  offices  that  our  finite 
strength  limits  us  to  giving  to  the  relatively  few,  while  the 
narrower  features  of  the  patriotism  of  to-day  will  be  swallowed 
up  in  a  broad  consideration  for  the  rights  of  humanity  and  all 
men  will  be  brothers. 


A  THREE-PLANK  PEACE  PLATFORM. 

Rev.  O.  P.  Gifford,  D.  D.,  Brookline,  Mass. 

The  last  speaker  of  the  evening  was  Rev.  O.  P.  Gifford  of 
Brookline,  Mass.,  who  spoke  on  “  A  Three-Plank  Peace  Plat¬ 
form.”  The  address,  which  was  pithy,  sententious  and  full  of 
good  humor,  is  here  summarized.  Having  laid  down  the  truth 
that  principles  are  incarnate  in  men,  Dr.  Gifford  held  up 
Abram  as  a  man  whose  conduct  is  suggestive  to  the  nations. 
Abram  fashions  for  us  some  of  the  planks  in  our  peace 
platform.  Three  of  these,  as  given  by  the  speaker,  are  brother¬ 
hood,  disinterestedness  and  the  tithe  ;  about  which  he  said  : 

I.  Brotherhood. 

Abram  was  rich.  He  had  a  nephew  who  prospered  with  his 
uncle,  as  a  train  shares  the  speed  of  the  locomotive  to  which  it 
is  attached.  Increase  of  flocks  meant  decrease  of  pasturage. 
Flocks  crowded  each  other,  shepherds  began  to  struggle. 
Most  wars  have  a  property  basis.  We  cry  principle  when  we 
mean  property. 

Abram,  El  Khalil  Allah,  the  Friend  of  God,  befriends  man. 
The  stronger  gives  the  weaker  the  first  choice.  “  Let  there 
be  no  strife,  I  pray  thee,  between  thee  and  me,  for  we  be 
brethren.”  Lot,  the  weak,  does  not  make  the  plea;  Abram, 
the  strong,  urges  the  argument.  Love  is  more  than  land.  It 
is  the  principle  that  rules  in  the  family  ;  the  weak  has  the  right 


of  way.  One  is  shocked  when  a  primitive  man  smites  his 
brother  by  the  altar ;  one  is  distressed  when  the  sons  of  Jacob 
sell  their  brother  into  slavery,  and  delighted  when  the  slave, 
become  a  king,  opens  Goshen  to  his  brothers. 

Lay  the  pattern  of  the  family  on  the  web  of  the  state.  The 
elder  brother  in  the  parable  is  a  disgrace  to  mankind  ;  no  less 
a  disgrace  when  the  man  becomes  a  nation  and,  instead  of 
ministering,  murders. 

God  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  “  He  hath  made  of  one 
blood  all  nations.”  One  cloud  nourishes  many  brooks,  and 
one  sea  welcomes  many  rivers.  We  have  our  first  plank.  No 
strife  between  brothers  for  the  sake  of  property.  The  United 
States  is  the  brother  of  all  nations.  A  war  between  the  United 
States  and  any  nation  would  be  civil  war. 

II.  No  gain  from  war  when  it  is  forced  upon  us. 

Lot  got  into  trouble,  his  plenty  attracted  attention,  the  city 
of  his  choice  was  attacked  and  looted;  an  escaping  slave  brought 
word  to  Abram,  he  gathered  his  shepherds,  pursued  the  robbers, 
overtook  them.  “  His  strength  was  as  the  strength  of  ten, 
because  his  cause  was  just.”  It  was  a  police  raid  on  robbers. 
On  his  return,  laden  with  spoil,  men,  women  and  property  that 
had  aroused  the  cupidity  of  the  robbers,  the  King  of  Sodom 
offered  to  take  the  persons  and  give  him  the  property,  and 
Abram  refused.  “  And  Abram  said  to  the  King  of  Sodom,  I 
have  lifted  up  mine  hand  unto  the  Lord,  the  most  high  God, 
the  possessor  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  I  will  not  take  from  a 
thread  even  to  a  shoe  latchet,  and  that  I  will  not  take  anything 
that  is  thine,  lest  thou  shouldst  say,  I  have  made  Abram  rich.” 

How  many  wars  would  be  waged  on  this  plank  ?  Tainted 
money  gained  by  injustice  in  trade  is  as  rose  water  to  civet-cat 
compared  to  plunder  such  as  Rome  enriched  herself  with,  as 
Napoleon  tore  from  Germany  and  Italy,  as  Germany  wrenched 
from  France.  We  despise  a  pickpocket,  but  a  plundering  nation 
is  a  pickpocket  writ  large  in  letters  of  blood.  T.  he  highway¬ 
man  says,  “  Your  money  or  your  life  ”  ;  the  conquering  nations 
say,  “Both.”  Let  The  Hague  bind  nations  never  to  take 
property  or  money  from  the  conquered,  and  the  plunder-lust  that 
incites  to  war  would  be  cured.  Once  war  meant  slavery  ;  now 
prisoners  are  cared  for  and  returned.  Let  us  put  property  on  the 
same  basis,  make  good  all  we  destroy,  and  the  charm  of  war  is 
ended.  Property  gain  is  the  mainspring  of  aggressive  war. 
The  Abram  who  returns  all  property  will  not  attack  nations  for 
the  sake  of  property. 


56 


III.  The  third  plank  is  the  tithe. 

On  his  return  from  the  struggle  Abram  met  his  superior, 
Melchizedek,  and  paid  tithes.  A  self-imposed  tax  of  one-tenth 
of  all  for  righteousness  and  peace. 

At  least  seventy  per  cent,  of  all  our  taxes  go  for  war,  either 
to  care  for  cripples,  pension  veterans,  patch  up  the  rents  made 
in  the  family  income,  or  to  pay  for  Annapolis  and  West  Point, 
that  we  may  have  trained  bloodhounds  to  lead  in  the  next  race 
for  death,  and  to  build  and  launch  so-called  Dreadnaughts,  that 
are  born  of  a  nightmare  of  fear,  and  shiver  every  time  a  new 
nightmare  gives  birth  to  a  new  steel  terror  beyond  the  sea. 

Suppose  the  nation  should  found  and  endow  schools  of  right¬ 
eousness  and  peace  ;  educate  young  men  to  conquer  the  forces  of 
nature  ;  teach  self-control  and  mastery  of  earth  and  air  ;  change 
the  ideals ;  pension  the  thinkers,  not  the  magnified  prize¬ 
fighters  ;  put  the  emphasis  on  brain  rather  than  brawn  ;  con¬ 
fess  the  supremacy  of  righteousness  and  peace,  pay  tithes  to 
both  ;  cultivate  the  passion  for  right  and  peace. 


i 


Center  Church  House,  Tuesday  Morning,  May  10, 

Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers  Presiding. 

The  session  of  Tuesday  morning  was  given  up  to  a  series  of 
addresses  which  related  mainly  to  the  part  of  women  in  the 
peace  movement,  to  the  teaching  of  peace  in  the  schools  and 
to  the  religious  foundations  of  peace  principles. 

The  first  speaker  was  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead  of  Boston. 


HOW  WOMEN  MUST  DEFEND  THE  REPUBLIC 

Lucia  Ames  Mead  of  Boston. 

Our  republic  to-day  is  threatened  with  dangers,  and  in  short¬ 
sighted,  blundering  fashion  is  creating  costly  defense  where 
there  is  only  hypothetical  danger,  and  is  neglecting  the  actual 
dangers  which  menace  it.  An  admiral  at  the  Mohonk  Arbitra¬ 
tion  Conference,  a  year  or  two  ago,  resented  the  talk  of  squan¬ 
dering  money  on  the  navy,  and  asked,  “  Why  does  not  the 
speaker  turn  his  attention  to  the  waste  of  more  than  six 
hundred  million  dollars  in  fires,  which  a  proper  civilization 
would  not  allow  to  occur?  Expenditure  on  the  navy  is  but  a 
triviality  in  comparison  with  such  extravagance.” 

In  arraigning  our  extravagance  and  waste  he  might  have 
gone  further  and  reminded  us  that  we  permit  ten  thousand 
homicides  every  year  and  hold  human  life  cheaper  than  any 
other  civilized  country ;  that  by  accident,  largely  preventable, 
in  mines,  factories,  railroads,  etc.,  we  have  destroyed  in  four 
recent  years  sixty  thousand  more  lives  than  were  destroyed  on 
both  sides  in  the  whole  four  years  of  the  bloody  Civil  War. 
He  might  have  added  that  we  permit  ten  times  as  many  citizens 
to  die  of  tuberculosis  every  year  as  have  been  killed  by  foreign 
bullets  in  all  our  three  foreign  wars  since  we  became  a  republic. 
He  might  also  have  called  attention  to  our  wanton  cutting 
down  of  forests  and  consequent  approach  to  a  timber  famine. 
But  is  not  the  logic  of  these  statements  precisely  the  reverse  of 
the  admiral  s  ?  If,  indeed,  all  these  dangers  exist  within  our 
midst,  against  which  we  are  expending  a  fraction  for  defense 
compared  with  what  we  spend  on  army  and  navy,  are  we  not 


58 


overturning  the  normal  order  of  things,  putting  our  greatest 
defense  where  it  is  least  needed  and  our  least  defense  where  it 
is  most  needed  ? 

But  our  admiral  declares  that  “  The  navy  is  the  greatest 
single  force  in  the  support  of  law  and  order  in  the  world 
to-day.”  The  admiral  would  of  course  ridicule  women  as  de¬ 
fenders  of  the  republic  because  he  ignores  our  chief  dangers. 
He  would  have  us  believe  that  anarchy  and  disruption  would 
ensue  if  his  class  were  not  relied  upon  for  our  main  defense. 
This  naive  conceit  should  not  be  accepted  for  a  moment  by  the 
clear-eyed  teachers  and  college  women  and  club  women  of 
America.  The  problem  is  one  of  statesmanship,  with  which 
the  technically-trained  admiral  or  general  is  least  competent  to 
deal.  His  problem  always  is  how  to  kill  present  friends  when 
we  have  made  them  enemies.  The  statesman  s  problem  is  how 
to  retain  friendship  with  those  who  are  now  friends.  It  is  a 
psychological  problem. 

The  militarist  ordinarily  assumes  that  nations  have  not  ad¬ 
vanced  beyond  the  stage  of  wanton  piracy  ;  that  without  navies 
each  would  be  at  the  other’s  throat.  He  ignores  the  new 
economic  inter-relationship,  evolved  in  the  last  thirty  years, 
which  would  make  the  looting  of  the  Bank  of  England  by  an 
invading  German  army  imperil  Berlin  and  New  York  banks. 
He  ignores  the  fact  that  Switzerland  with  no  navy  and  Belgium 
with  but  a  small  one  snatch  contracts  from  England  with  her 
own  colonies ;  that  credit  is  higher  in  Denmark  and  Norway 
than  in  Germany  and  England.  He  fails  utterly  to  see  that 
the  Prime  Defense  of  Nations  Against  Aggression  is  Mutual 
Interests.  Whatever  may  have  been  true  in  the  past,  the  con¬ 
quest  of  one  nation  over  another  of  equal  standing  to-day 
means,  as  experts  have  demonstrated,  more  loss  than  gain  for 
the  conqueror. 

Every  teacher  should  teach  her  boys  and  girls  that,  whether 
there  be  police  or  no  police,  it  is  their  common  humanity  and 
mutual  interests  which  restrain  them  from  stealing  or  murder¬ 
ing  each  other ;  so  it  is  the  common  humanity  and  mutual 
interests  of  nations,  not  their  navies,  small  or  large,  which  keep 
them  from  violent  aggression  on  their  equals  ninety-nine  times 
out  of  a  hundred.  No  teacher  should  fail  to  show  that,  while 
police  are  needed  for  an  indefinite  time  to  take  to  court  the 
small  fraction  of  citizens  who  are  not  controlled  by  these  con¬ 
siderations,  only  an  international  police,  and  not  rival  navies,  is 
needed  to  support  law  and  order  between  nations.  Police  use 


59 


no  force  except  the  minimum  necessary  to  take  miscreants  to 
court.  Navies  never  take  any  one  to  court.  Police  of  one 
town  never  fight  the  police  of  another.  Navies  are  built  solely 
to  fight  other  navies.  They  rarely  perform  the  kindly,  protect¬ 
ive  service  which  is  the  primary  function  of  the  police.  They 

are  rather  the  short-lived  instruments  made  for  international 
dueling. 

The  aforesaid  admiral’s  claim,  moreover,  that  “  We  can  take 
no  stand  in  diplomacy  without  its  aid,”  arrogates  influence  to 
the  navy  that  is  due  rather  to  the  integrity  of  the  nation  and 
its  commercial  influence.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  was  estab¬ 
lished  and  maintained  when  for  sixty  years  or  more  we  had  an 
insignificant  navy  compared  with  European  navies.  The  first 
Venezuelan  difficulty  we  compelled  England  to  settle  in  1896 
by  arbitration.  Never  has  the  world  had  a  better  refutation 
than  in  the  agreement  between  England  and  the  United  States 
in  1817  of  the  doctrine  that  “We  can  take  no  stand  in  diplo¬ 
macy  except  by  the  aid  of  the  navy.”  Moreover  our  peaceful 
settlement  of  the  Alabama  claims,  in  which  a  serious  question 
of  honor  was  involved,  was  when  England’s  navy  very  much 
exceeded  ours. 

At  the  Hague  Conference  in  1907  England,  with  the  largest 
navy  in  the  world,  accomplished  practically  nothing,  while  the 
proposals  of  nations  which  had  smaller  navies  were  carried 
through.  The  very  size  of  England’s  navy  —  a  double  stand¬ 
ard  —  prevented  Germany  from  accepting  any  proposition  for 
relative  reduction  of  armaments  which  would  leave  England  in 
such  a  superior  position.  Men  of  ability  from  countries  with 
smaller  navies  were  given  as  much  consideration  as  those  from 
England. 

I  dwell  on  the  fallacies  of  this  particular  admiral  in  an  address 
on  woman’s  power  to  defend  the  republic,  because  his  naive 
assumption  of  the  superlative  value  of  the  kind  of  defense  he 
uses  discredits  any  defense  from  non-combatants.  The  school 
teachers  of  America,  who  are  preventing  our  republic  from  being 
ruled  presently  by  an  illiterate  mob,  are  a  far  greater  defense  of 
the  country  than  our  costly,  short-lived  navy.  The  mothers  and 
nurses  of  our  land,  who  are  fighting  dirt,  the  deadly  microbe, 
the  mosquito,  the  fly  and  the  rat,  are  literally  doing  a  thousand 
times  as  much  as  our  army  and  navy  combined  to  save  American 
lives  and  property  from  otherwise  certain  destruction. 

In  this  month  in  which  we  do  reverence  to  the  dead  heroes 
who  fought  to  preserve  the  nation,  I  gladly  lay  my  wreaths  on 


6o 


their  world-honored  urns.  But  let  the  public  never  forget  that 
civil  war  and  international  war  are  in  two  different  categories, 
and  that  the  time  has  passed  when  international  war  should  be 
endured  in  a  civilized  world. 

The  average  woman  is  hostile  to  war,  but  is  hardly  more 
hostile  to  the  war  system  than  the  average  man.  If  she  would 
defend  the  republic  from  the  growing  spirit  of  militarism  she 
must  learn  how  to  undermine  the  system,  for  the  system 

involves  war  preparations  in  the  name  of  peace. 

The  growth  of  increased  reliance  on  force  has  paradoxically 
been  very  marked  in  our  country  since  the  large  provision  for 
substitutes  for  war  began  to  be  made  in  1899.  This  movement 
not  only  shows  infidelity  to  our  pledges  and  professions,  but  it 
is  coincident  with  the  increased  reciprocity  existing  between 
the  working  men  of  different  lands.  It  is  a  result  of  the  impetus 
given  to  militarism  by  the  Spanish  War,  of  the  ambition  of  the 
Navy  League  and  certain  vested  interests,  and  in  the  encourage¬ 
ment  given  by  certain  admirable  men  who  imagine  that  a  display 
of  armor  plate  inspires  respect  from  foreign  powers. 

First  of  all,  women  must  teach  patriotism  in  a  distinctly  dif¬ 
ferent  fashion.  To-day  the  common  idea  of  that  virtue  is  that 
it  has  something  to  do  with  a  gun.  I  read,  “  The  bill  to  pro¬ 
mote  rifle  practice  and  a  patriotic  spirit  among  the  citizens  and 
youth  of  the  United  States  has  passed  the  Senate.” 

The  women  of  the  republic,  whether  teachers  or  mothers, 
have  no  more  important  service  to  render  than  to  teach  Ameri¬ 
can  boys  and  girls  that  patriotism  has  no  more  to  do  with  a  gun 
than  with  a  broom  ;  that  Colonel  Waring  with  his  brooms,  faith¬ 
fully  cleansing  New  York  as  it  has  never  been  cleansed  before, 
and  thereby  lowering  the  death  rate  by  fifteen  thousand  lives, 
was  doing  a  greater  service  than  if  he  had  fifteen  thousand 
corpses  of  Mexicans  on  the  battlefield.  The  women’s  patriotic 
societies  can  do  no  greater  service  than  to  teach  that  patriotism 
is  not  to  be  tested  by  a  show  of  bunting  or  pride  in  ancestors 
who  once  were  patriots,  but  is  to  be  tested  simply  by  service 
by  women  as  well  as  men,  not  a  peculiar  service  in  time  of  war 

for  a  few.  .  ,  ,  T, 

As  a  people  we  lack  the  kind  of  patriotism  most  needed.  1  ne 

spectacular  type  appeals  to  us.  Our  Fourth  of  July  annual 
slaughter,  our  making  almost  a  fetish  of  the  flag  are  but  two 
illustrations  of  it.  The  daily  thought  of  our  country’s  needs, 
the  willingness  to  do  unpaid  services  without  thought  of  pension 
or  title  or  honor  or  promotion  is  rarer  among  Americans  than 


6i 


among  Englishmen.  The  young  woman  as  well  as  young  man 
must  be  inspired  to  chivalric,  valiant  mood.  She  should  see  in 
her  club  work,  church  work,  her  home  life  and  vocation  avenues 
of  patriotic  service  worthy  the  spirit  of  devotion  and  faithfulness 
of  Jeanne  d’Arc  or  of  Florence  Nightingale.  Women  are  the 
buyers  and  educators.  They  set  the  standard  of  living  and  the 
ideals  of  the  child.  They  largely  control  the  standards  of 
amusements.  They  can  practically  control  race  prejudice  and 
the  tendency  to  a  caste  system,  which  always  conduce  to  spe¬ 
cial  privilege  and  militarism. 

We  need  women  with  a  patriotism  which  is  equal  to  sacrific¬ 
ing  bridge  whist  parties  in  order  to  teach  little  immigrant  citi¬ 
zens,  not  colonial  history,  which  they  can  learn  at  school,  but 
the  best  American  standards  of  wholesome  living.  We  need 
debutantes  with  a  patriotism  which  is  equal  to  some  sacrifice  of 
the  parties  and  pleasure  of  the  privileged  for  the  masses  whose 
poverty  or  ignorance  or  illness  menace  the  republic.  We  need 
women  who  will  bring  to  the  busy  men  who  earn  their  bread 
something  of  the  vision  and  wide  outlook  over  national  problems 
which  their  clubs  and  reading  ought  to  furnish. 

Probably  the  best  patriotic  work  among  the  women’s  organiza¬ 
tions  to-day  is  being  done  by  the  women’s  clubs,  though  they 
do  not  label  their  work  as  patriotic.  But  whoever  works  against 
child  labor  and  for  conservation,  education  and  good  citizenship 
is  doing  the  highest  form  of  patriotic  service.  This  week,  at 
the  Biennial  of  the  Federation  of  Women’s  Clubs  at  Cincinnati, 
for  the  first  time  the  peace  movement  is  to  be  put  upon  the 
program,  and,  though  it  is  to  be  argued  pro  and  con,  it  is  no 
longer  to  be  ignored  by  this  able  body  of  eight  hundred  thou¬ 
sand  women  who  are  actively  engaged  in  promoting  the  national 
welfare. 

If  women  are  to  work  effectively  they  must  learn  facts  which 
they  usually  cannot  learn  from  the  men  of  their  household,  as 
uninformed  as  themselves.  The  average  man  does  not  know 
of  one  in  a  hundred  of  the  manifold  international  organizations 
which  to-day  are  binding  the  world  more  closely  together  than 
were  our  colonies  prior  to  the  Constitutional  Convention.  He 
scarcely  knows  of  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  has  probably 
never  heard  of  the  new  auxiliary  to  the  peace  movement,  the 
International  Institute  of  Agriculture,  with  headquarters  in 
Rome,  to  which  forty-nine  nations  by  a  treaty  are  pledged. 
Small  blame  to  many  a  hard-worked,  busy  father  who  gets  his 
political  philosophy  from  headlines.  But  what  he  does  not 


62 


know  on  these  new  subjects,  never  taught  in  his  school  days, 
let  him  not  scorn  to  learn  from  his  wife  or  college  daughter. 

The  main  question  of  defense  is  a  human  question,  I  repeat, 
a  psychological  question.  In  this  promotion  of  international 
friendship  let  the  home  maker,  wherever  there  are  Chinese  or 
Japanese  students,  offer,  when  possible,  courtesies  and  hospi¬ 
tality  to  these  strangers  who  are  to  be  leaders  in  lands  with 
whom  we  earnestly  desire  to  retain  our  old-time  friendship. 
Let  this  rapidly  increasing  body  of  keen,  alert  young  minds 
from  the  Orient  carry  home  not  merely  a  knowledge  of  our 
college  laboratories  and  dormitories,  but  also  of  our  refined 
Christian  homes.  A  little  thoughtful  friendliness  may  do  more 
to  avert  a  costly  tension  between  two  different  races  or  nation¬ 
alities  than  all  the  battleships  that  can  be  mustered  in  the 
Pacific. 

President  John  M.  Thomas  of  Middlebury  College,  Vt.,  was 
the  next  speaker.  Dr.  Thomas,  having  first  stated  the  economic 
argument  commonly  used  by  the  friends  of  peace  against  war 
and  warlike  preparations,  took  up  his  main  theme  as  follows  : 


THE  DYNAMIC  OF  A  SUCCESSFUL  WORLD  PEACE 

MOVEMENT* 

President  John  M.  Thomas,  Middlebury  College,  Vt. 

I  do  not  believe  that  we  can  ever  combat  successfully  the 
tremendous  military  might  of  the  world  by  appeal  to  its 
economic  waste.  Not  only  are  there  compensating  advantages 
on  the  side  of  militarism,  but  there  are  undoubted  benefits 
accruing  to  nations,  which,  on  a  purely  materialistic  basis,  justify 
the  expenditure.  It  was  the  Roman  army  which  made  the 
wealth  of  Rome,  and  the  Dreadnaughts  and  their  predecessors 
have  given  England  her  commercial  supremacy.  The  rebirth 
of  industrial  Germany  dates  from  the  Franco-Prussian  War, 
and  if  Napoleon  had  conquered  it  doubtless  would  have  been 
worth  to  France  in  dollars  and  cents  the  cost  of  his  legions. 
The  race-old  fighting  instinct  is  not  altogether  mistaken.  Men 
fight  to  get  gain,  and  nations  wage  war  to  acquire  territory  and 
to  secure  the  advantages  of  territorial  acquisition.  It  is  because 
trade  follows  the  flag  that  the  flag  is  pushed  forward,  and  if 
trade  is  the  master  of  our  conduct,  the  thing  to  do  is  to  advance 
the  flag.  We  shall  exhibit  the  cost  of  our  navies  in  vain  to  men 


63 


who  seek  first  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  and  their  riches. 
It  may  be  there  is  a  wiser  political  economy,  which  has  no 
place  for  military  aggression,  but  if  so,  it  includes  other  in¬ 
terests  than  commercial  ones.  The  pursuit  of  wealth  can  never 
be  the  foundation  of  a  noble  state  or  a  lasting  peace.  Sooner 
or  later  advantage  will  dictate  war,  and  the  nation  which  regards 
its  own  selfish  interest  as  its  primary  duty  and  first  concern 
must  be  deceitful  in  its  diplomacy,  and  prudent,  keen,  and 
daring  in  its  military  preparations.  If  the  wealth  of  this  earth, 
its  supplies  of  food  and  clothing  and  luxuries,  are  to  be  the  chief 
interest  of  men,  they  must  fight  for  the  possession  of  them, 
since  nature  by  no  means  distributes  them  equally,  and  hunger 
and  greed  will  force  to  conflict.  In  the  dispensation  of  the 
struggle  for  existence  there  must  be  bloodshed.  The  fruitage 
of  the  earth  is  limited,  and  populations  increase  with  incredible 
swiftness. 

“  Warless,  when  her  tens  are  thousands,  and  her  thousands  millions,  then 
All  her  harvests  are  too  narrow ;  who  can  picture  warless  men  ?  ” 

Universal  peace  is  an  idle,  fanatical  dream  so  long  as  harvests 
are  the  motive  which  controls  our  life.  We  must  find  a  more 
powerful  dynamic  than  the  wasteful  havoc  of  Krupp  guns,  for 
however  the  gun  may  waste  humanity,  it  is  the  nation’s  instru¬ 
ment  of  power  and  not  infrequently  the  enginery  of  plenty  to 
the  citizens  composing  the  nation. 

Yet  every  instinct  within  us  cries  out  against  aggressive 
conflict,  and  international  wars  must  go  the  way  of  the  robber 
baron’s  castles  and  the  black  ships  of  pirates.  To  say  that  on 
a  commercial  basis  militarism  is  justified  is  not  to  defend  battle¬ 
ships  and  standing  armies,  but  to  exhibit  the  necessity  of  a  new 
basis  for  the  regulation  of  national  conduct.  If  to  live  for  gain 
means  to  be  ready  to  fight,  we  must  find  another  motive  for 
life.  The  condemnation  of  war  is  right,  and  the  most  fanatical 
peace  agitator  is  nearer  the  truth  than  the  most  skillful  de¬ 
fender  of  militarism,  but  the  peace  advocate  needs  to  shift  his 
argument  to  a  higher  plane  than  that  of  profit  and  loss.  Where 
shall  we  find  the  sufficient  argument,  the  adequate  dynamic  for 
a  peace  movement  that  shall  conquer  the  world  ? 

In  the  days  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  toward  the  latter  part  of  his 
reign,  when  the  world  was  waiting  for  death  to  stop  his  cruelty 
and  tyranny,  there  went  a  sower  forth  to  sow.  In  Rome  a 
tyrant  monarch,  debauched  and  bestial,  crushing  the  last  rem¬ 
nants  of  a  people’s  liberties,  in  absolute  control  of  the  grandest 


64 


despotism  the  world  has  known  ;  in  poor,  remote  Galilee  a 
humble,  unlettered  man,  who  called  himself  a  sower  of  seed. 

His  seed  was  the  word  :  not  some  word  formulated  by  a  great 
master  of  reasoning,  nor  the  word  vouchsafed  of  God  to  some 
great  prophet  of  the  past,  but  his  own  word,  the  word  God 
vouchsafed  to  him  as  he  worked  at  his  bench  and  looked  off 
on  the  shepherds  on  the  mountains  and  listened  in  the  syna¬ 
gogue  to  the  laws  and  sermons  of  a  former  time.  His  field  was 
the  land  of  his  people,  of  his  own  race,  especially  Galilee,  the 
northern  part  of  it,  the  active,  worldly  business  part,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  quieter,  more  scholarly,  more  religious  Judea. 
He  refused  to  teach  others  than  his  own  people,  but  went  from 
village  to  village  of  his  countrymen,  sowing  his  seed.  He  found 
the  soil  not  very  promising,  but  he  kept  on,  sowing  seed.  He 
did  not  try  to  do  anything  else,  to  turn  himself  into  a  states¬ 
man  or  lawgiver,  or  bishop  or  priest.  His  function  and  work 
was  that  of  a  seed-sower,  and  he  gave  out  his  truth,  as  clearly 
and  forcibly  as  he  could,  until  they  took  away  his  life. 

The  seed  that  he  planted  was  that  the  highest  good  is  not  in 
houses  and  lands,  nor  in  possessions  great  or  small,  nor  in  indi¬ 
vidual  attainment,  whether  of  material  things,  or  wealth  of 
knowledge,  or  even  personal  religious  merit,  or  anything  that  a 
man  locks  up  within  himself,  but  in  identification  of  one’s  self 
in  the  common  interest,  the  broad  universal  good  of  God  and 
man  and  the  world.  His  disciples  were  not  to  seek  by  a  differ¬ 
ent  way  the  things  which  the  nations  of  the  world  seek  after  ; 
they  were  not  to  seek  them  at  all.  They  were  not  to  strive  for 
the  treasures  of  earth,  material,  intellectual,  or  even  religious  ; 
they  were  to  strive  for  the  treasures  of  heaven.  They  were  to 
find  their  life  in  love,  not  because  love  brings  happiness,  or  leads 
to  the  highest  development  of  manhood,  nor  for  any  interest 
centering  in  self,  but  simply  because  the  larger  good  claims 
their  manhood. 

The  truth  of  the  seed-sower  is  that  the  very  nature  bred  in 
us  by  the  millenniums  of  struggles  for  self  misguides  the  soul 
in  its  quest  for  life.  Values  are  not  where  we  think  them. 
The  whole  category  of  personal  enrichment  is  an  error.  The 
miser  of  knowledge,  the  miser  of  personal  satisfaction  in  relig¬ 
ious  peace  and  immediate  comprehension  of  God,  the  miser  of 
joy  in  the  sense  of  merit  through  duty  done  is  as  much  a  fool 
as  the  miser  of  gold.  There  is  no  currency  in  which  a  man 
may  be  rich  unto  himself,  and  as  long  as  he  counts  aught  his 
own  he  has  not  found  the  secret  of  the  glory  of  humanity’s 


65 


true  estate.  The  only  good  is  common  good.  Service  is  not 
a  subsidiary  duty ;  it  is  the  all  of  life.  Love  must  go  to  the 
length  of  the  cross,  and  only  in  love  in  that  measure  is  true 
life  attained. 

The  discovery  of  Jesus  was  the  sense  of  the  common  good. 
One  of  his  disciples  rightly  discerned  that  in  him  was  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free.  Under  the 
dominion  of  his  truth  there  is  no  Briton  nor  American,  no  French 
nor  German,  but  one  world-wide  family  into  which  each  nation 
brings  its  treasure.  A  man  must  love  his  country,  but  not  for 
what  his  nation  may  gain  at  the  expense  of  others,  but  for 
what  his  country  has  to  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  the  world. 
There  will  be  separate  peoples  and  governments  until  the  dawn 
of  the  millennium,  and  patriotism  will  never  be  an  extinct  virtue. 
But  the  world  must  become  so  organized  that  the  patriot  will 
not  be  required  to  give  his  life  for  a  section  of  the  race,  but  for 
some  noble  endeavor  in  the  uplift  of  the  whole. 

They  crucified  the  seed-sower,  and  those  who  came  after 
him  and  called  themselves  by  his  name  made  little  progress, 
after  the  first  few  years  of  inspiration  from  his  presence,  in  the 
understanding  of  his  truth.  But  his  words  were  preserved,  not 
in  the  most  skillful  manner,  but,  nevertheless,  considering  the 
haphazard  method,  with  remarkable  fidelity.  The  leaven  has 
been  working,  slowly,  gradually,  but  persistently,  and  never 
more  mightily  than  in  the  last  few  decades,  when  criticism  has 
brought  the  Galilean  teaching  to  clearer  light  and  truer  under¬ 
standing  than  ever  before.  At  length  there  has  come  to  view 
another  dispensation  than  that  of  the  struggle  for  existence. 
The  higher  privilege  and  the  grander  glory  of  endeavor  for  the 
worthy  existence  of  all  is  now  clear,  and  it  is  destined  to  trans¬ 
form  the  entire  regime  under  which  humanity  pursues  its  life. 
New  motives  are  coming  in  to  govern  men’s  lives,  and  new 
ideals  to  fire  their  enthusiasm.  The  service  of  all  is  taking  the 
place  of  the  advancement  of  the  individual,  and  the  aggrandize¬ 
ment  of  one’s  class  or  nation  as  the  spring  of  enterprise.  The 
welfare  of  humanity  is  coming  to  the  fore  as  the  principle  of 
conduct,  of  the  conduct  of  nations  as  well  as  that  of  individuals, 
rather  than  the  advancement  of  self  or  one’s  own  social  group. 

Under  the  new  dispensation  war  is  absolutely  out  of  place. 
Our  costly  navies  and  highly  organized  armies  are  but  the  suc¬ 
cessors  of  the  tooth  and  claw  of  the  brute  age,  the  scythed 
chariot  of  the  Assyrian,  the  midnight  tomahawk  of  the  red 
Indian.  Krupp  guns  and  poisoned  arrows  are  the  same  in 


66 


principle,  differing  only  in  cleverness.  The  whole  system  of 
destruction  is  an  anachronism  in  the  day  of  the  vision  of  the 

common  good  as  the  master  of  life. 

What  we  need  as  the  dynamic  of  a  successful  world  peace 
movement  is  a  new  and  commanding  conception  of  the  common 
good.  The  war  drums  will  beat  until  the  nations  realize  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  exists,  a  reality  claiming  the  service  and 
the  life  of  every  last  one  of  the  children  of  men.  Religion,  the 
old-time  mother  of  civilizations,  the  kindler  of  fire  in  the  hearts 
of  men,  must  take  the  vision  of  a  common  humanity,  each 
serving  each  and  all  united  for  the  uplift  of  all,  and  flash  the 
compelling  truth  before  the  world.  None  but  prophets  have 
ever  ushered  in  a  new  day  of  glory  for  the  earth,  and  on 
prophets,  not  calculators,  must  we  wait  for  the  glorious  triumph 
of  the  message  of  peace.  Religion  alone  has  the  divine  might 
to  glorify  the  idea  of  the  common  good  with  the  grandeur  of 
compelling  duty.  She  alone  can  touch  the  imaginations  of  men 
with  the  grandeur  of  a  world  in  which  every  nation  seeks  its 
highest  development  in  industry,  in  intelligence,  in  artistic 
skill,  in  spiritual  character,  and  lays  every  attainment  on  the 
altar  of  the  common  good  of  the  world. 

We  have  had  ecclesiastical  religion,  in  which  the  interests  of 
the  world  were  subserved  to  those  of  the  church,  and  the  goal 
was  not  a  renewed  humanity,  but  the  selection  of  an  aristocracy 
in  privilege  and  enjoyment.  We  have  had  the  religion  of  the 
pietists  and  mystics,  in  which  the  individual  was  concerned  for 
his  soul  alone  and  left  the  brutal  world  to  take  its  way.  We 
have  had  national  religions,  which  served  to  hold  tribes  to¬ 
gether  under  a  common  worship  and  to  preserve  the  boundaries 
of  a  state  or  the  institutions  of  a  race.  We  need  now  prophets 
in  every  religion  to  herald  the  truth  of  the  higher  good  for  the 
individual  than  his  own  personal  gain,  and  the  nobler  mission 
of  the  nation  than  its  increase  in  wealth  and  prosperity,  the 
worthier  duty  even  of  a  religious  faith  than  to  make  converts 
to  its  tenets.  We  need  prophets  of  the  universal  kingdom. of 
God,  and  when  they  appear  in  the  might  of  the  Lord  the  navies 
of  all  the  nations  shall  melt  away  — 

“  And  peace  shall  over  all  the  earth  its  ancient  splendors  fling,  .  ^ 

And  the  whole  earth  give  back  the  song  which  now  the  angels  sing.” 

Constantine  misread  his  sign.  It  was  not  “  By  this  sign 
conquer  the  heathen  ”  ;  it  was  “  By  this  sign  conquer  all  legions 
and  armies,  Christian  as  well  as  pagan,  and  let  war  give  way 


6; 


to  love.”  In  the  days  of  Tiberius  Caesar  there  went  a  sower 
forth  to  sow.  The  empire  of  Tiberius  long  since  crumbled, 
and  now  the  system  of  brute  force  on  which  it  was  founded  is 
swaying  to  its  doom,  for  the  harvest  of  the  seed-sower  is  begin¬ 
ning  to  come  to  its  fruitage. 

Dr.  Thomas  was  followed  by  Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews  of 
Boston,  Secretary  of  the  American  School  Peace  League,  who 
said  : 

THE  POWER  OF  WOMEN  TO  PROMOTE  PEACE  IN 

THE  SCHOOLS. 

Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews,  Secretary  of  the 
American  School  Peace  League. 

A  discussion  of  women’s  power  to  promote  peace  in  the 
schools  involves  a  general  consideration  of  the  potent  and  actual 
influence  of  women  in  school  affairs.  In  three  capacities,  their 
services  in  this  connection  may  be  estimated.  The  first  role 
which  woman  plays  is  that  of  mother ;  the  second,  of  the  woman 
in  organized  activities,  such  as  the  mothers’  club,  the  women’s 
club,  and  the  patriotic  societies  ;  and  third,  that  of  teacher. 

The  mother  who  teaches  her  child  the  principles  on  which 
the  international  peace  movement  is  founded  makes  an  impor¬ 
tant  contribution  to  the  ideals  which  the  teacher  is  able  to 
establish.  The  mothers’  club,  the  women’s  club  and  the 
patriotic  society  might  well  become  organized  appeals  for  the 
teaching  of  the  facts  and  principles  of  internationalism.  These 
bodies  are  potent  agencies  for  developing  public  opinion  in 
favor  of  such  instruction.  But  the  teacher  is  the  one  person 
who  can  carry  such  teaching  into  execution. 

One  great  necessity  confronts  the  woman  acting  in  any  one 
of  these  capacities,  namely,  to  acquaint  herself  thoroughly  with 
the  movement.  There  are  special  reasons,  however,  why 
teachers  should  become  acquainted  with  the  facts  and  principles 
of  this  social,  economic  and  political  force.  In  the  first  place, 
there  are  at  the  basis  of  the  movement  these  ethical  ideals 
which  the  teacher  labors  to  establish  and  to  foster  within  her 
own  field  of  activity.  The  inculcation  of  such  ideals  lifts  the 
growing  youth  to  a  higher  plane  of  social  and  civic  life. 

Since  this  development  of  international  politics,  leading 
directly  toward  a  federation  of  the  nations,  vitally  concerns  our 
own  country,  which  has  taken  on  during  the  last  ten  years  a 


68 


new  economic  and  political  significance  among  the  nations  of 
the  world,  the  teacher  of  geography  and  history  should  under¬ 
stand  the  progress  of  the  international  movement.  The  pupil 
should  learn  through  geography  that  the  resources  of  all  coun¬ 
tries  are  needed  to  supply  our  wants  ;  in  fact,  that  every 
active  man,  wherever  he  may  be,  makes  some  contribution  to 

the  well  being  of  the  world  at  large. 

To  give  the  proper  interpretation  to  the  historical  records  of 
our  country, —  whose  federation  of  states  foreshadows  the  feder¬ 
ation  of  nations  ;  whose  national  congress,  the  congress  of  the 
world ;  whose  supreme  court,  the  permanent  international 

court, _ the  teacher  of  history  must  bring  out  the  fact  that  our 

history  is  a  part  of  world  history,  and  that  we  have  a  racial 
inheritance  to  which  people  of  various  lands  and  ages  have 
made  invaluable  contributions.  Our  national  life,  in  all  its 
phases,  is  closely  interwoven  with  the  life  of  European  coun¬ 
tries.  Our  teachers  must  point  out,  too,  the  special  mission  of 
the  United  States,  the  greatest  experiment  in  the  development 
of  democracy,  in  the  movement  for  the  completion  of  the  great 

union  of  nations. 

Such  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  teachers  with  the  principles 
and  facts  of  internationalism  will  inevitably  keep  our  schools 
abreast  of  the  most  advanced  thought  of  the  age.  This,  then, 
leads  to  a  third  justification  for  the  study  of  the  international 
movement  by  teachers.  Possessing  this  knowledge,  they  are 
able  to  teach  the  actual  events  of  international  political  progress, 
which  constitute  in  reality  the  most  notable  fact  in  ^  modern 
history.  Aside  from  the  history  courses,  current  events’  classes, 
which  aim  to  present  the  whole  panorama  of  contemporaneous 
occurrences,  lend  themselves  especially  well  to  this  end.  And, 
finally,  the  appropriate  observance  of  the  Eighteenth  of  May, 
the  anniversary  of  the  opening  of  the  first  Peace  Congress  at 
The  Hague,  offers  to  the  teacher  the  opportunity  of  calling  to 
mind  the  principles  for  which  this  commemorative  day  stands, 
so  to  stimulate  sentiments  that  make  for  international  peace. 
On  this  day  a  special  review  should  be  made  of  the  principal 
forces  leading  up  to  the  calling  of  the  Hague  Conferences,  of 
their  work,  the  definite  results  so  far  accomplished  and  the 
achievements  yet  hoped  for.  Through  such  teaching  .  there 
will  be  developed  that  state  of  mind  which,  without  criticising 
the  past,  will  be  able  to  discern  the  heroic  figures  in  the  peace¬ 
ful  progress  of  the  world,  and  give  them  their  just  and  right¬ 
ful  place  in  the  world’s  history. 


69 


The  American  School  Peace  League,  whose  president  is 
Superintendent  James  H.  Van  Sickle  of  Baltimore,  was  organ¬ 
ized  to  create  this  state  of  mind,  and  to  this  end  it  seeks  the 
cooperation  of  the  teachers  of  America.  The  League  is  an 
outgrowth  of  the  National  Peace  Congress  which  met  in  New 
York  in  1907.  It  comprises  to-day  representative  educators 
from  every  State  in  the  Union;  and  in  order  to  clinch  and 
extend  such  educational  interests,  it  is  the  plan  of  the  League 
to  organize  State  Branches.  On  the  occasion  of  the  meetings 
of  their  respective  State  Teachers’  Associations,  Maine,  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  Virginia,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  New  Mexico,  South 
Carolina,  Texas,  Florida,  Arkansas,  Oklahoma,  Alabama, 
Georgia  and  Mississippi  have  already  taken  this  step.  Plans 
for  similar  action  are  under  way  in  several  other  States,  and 
there  is  every  reason  to  expect  that  within  the  next  year  the 
family  of  State  Branches  will  be  complete. 

One  of  unique  organization  is  the  branch  formed  last  August 
at  the  Summer  School  of  the  South.  The  membership  is  com¬ 
posed  mainly  of  Southern  teachers  who  are  promoting  the  for¬ 
mation  of  branches  in  the  Southern  States.  Their  efforts  are 
directed  by  the  secretary  of  the  Southern  Branch,  Mr.  William 
K.  Tate,  Superintendent  of  Schools,  Charleston,  S.  C.,  while 
the  local  work  is  carried  out  by  committees  corresponding  to 
the  standing  committees  of  the  League. 

When  the  League  was  organized,  various  committees  were 
selected  as  being  most  essential  to  the  development  of  the  work. 
One  committee  of  very  great  importance  is  that  on  Meetings 
and  Discussions,  which  seeks  to  extend  the  knowledge  of  the 
international  movement  through  meetings  and  discussions, 
especially  in  connection  with  educational  conventions  and 
teachers’  reading  circles,  of  which  there  are  great  numbers  in 
all  parts  of  the  country.  It  will  prepare  programs  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  and  suggest  appropriate  speakers,  who  will  be  included  in 
a  lecture  bureau  which  is  now  being  established.  This  com¬ 
mittee  has  also  in  preparation  an  outline  of  study  which  can  be 
used  by  teachers’  reading  circles. 

In  response  to  the  great  need  for  available  literature  on  the 
subject  of  internationalism  which  directly  appeals  to  teachers 
and  young  people,  the  League  has,  through  its  Publications 
Committee,  secured  the  services  of  several  practical  teachers, 
who  are  preparing  articles  for  this  purpose.  The  League  has 
published  ten  thousand  copies  of  Superintendent  Wilbur  F. 
Gordy’s  address  on  “Teaching  Peace  in  the  Schools  through 


;o 


Instruction  in  American  History,”  which  he  delivered  at  the 
annual  meeting  in  Denver  last  July.  This  address,  which  is  of 
vital  concern  to  the  development  of  the  international  idea  among 
teachers,  was  published  in  the  Educational  Review  for  Septem¬ 
ber,  1909.  One  of  the  members  of  the  Publications  Committee 
has  undertaken  the  preparation  of  a  manual  consisting  of  graded 
exercises  for  the  observance  of  the  18th  of  May  in  the  schools. 

On  account  of  the  special  importance  of  the  teaching  of  his¬ 
tory  in  promulgating  the  ideas  consistent  with  the  international 
movement,  a  Committee  on  the  Teaching  of  History  was  formed. 
Its  function  is  to  develop  among  teachers  a  sentiment  that  rec¬ 
ognizes  the  arts  of  peace  as  well  as  those  of  war  in  the  histor¬ 
ical  development  of  nations.  It  is  arranging,  therefore,  courses 
of  history  to  be  given  at  teachers’  institutes  and  summer  schools. 

The  Press  Committee  is  reaching  the  teachers  through  the 
educational  magazines  and  the  daily  press.  It  has  published 
during  this  year  a  series  of  articles  by  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead, 
entitled  “  Internationalism  and  Patriotism.”  The  specific  titles 
of  these  articles  are  as  follows  :  “  The  American  School  Peace 
League,”  “Some  Current  Fallacies,”  “Teaching  Patriotism,” 
“  Peace  Day  ”  and  “  Flag  Day.”  The  educational  press  of  the 
country  has  already  responded  to  the  request  of  the  League  to 
print  various  reports  and  especially  the  announcement  of  the 
peace  prize  essay  and  peace  pin  contests. 

The  League  offered  this  year  two  sets  of  prizes,  one  open  to 
the  Seniors  in  the  normal  schools  of  the  United  States  and  the 
other  open  to  the  Seniors  in  the  secondary  schools,  for  the  best 
essays  on  one  of  the  following  subjects : 

1.  The  United  States  the  Exemplar  of  an  Organized  World. 

2.  The  History  of  International  Arbitration. 

3.  The  History  and  Significance  of  the  Two  Hague  Peace 
Conferences. 

4.  The  Opportunity  and  Duty  of  the  Schools  in  the  Inter¬ 
national  Peace  Movement. 

5.  The  Evolution  of  Patriotism. 

Three  prizes  of  seventy-five,  fifty  and  twenty-five  dollars 
will  be  given  for  the  three  best  essays  in  both  sets. 

The  contest  closed  March  1,  1910. 

Two  sets  of  prizes  are  also  offered  for  the  most  artistic  and 
appropriate  designs  which  may  be  used  as  the  official  symbol 
of  the  American  School  Peace  League.  Such  designs  must 
lend  themselves  to  decorative  purposes,  such  as  brooches,  scarf 
pins,  etc. 


7 1 

First  set  :  Open  to  the  public  and  private  elementary  schools 
of  the  United  States. 

Second  set :  Open  to  the  public  and  private  secondary  schools 
of  the  United  States. 

Three  prizes  of  seventy-five,  fifty  and  twenty-five  dollars  will 
be  given  for  the  three  best  designs  in  both  sets. 

The  contest  closed  May  i,  1910. 

While  the  League  is  national  in  its  scope  and  efforts,  it  real¬ 
izes  its  international  functions,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Inter¬ 
national  Committee  was  formed.  Indeed,  the  initiative  has 
already  been  taken  by  keen-sighted  and  earnest  workers  outside 
our  borders.  From  New  Brunswick,  Australia,  Norway,  Russia 
and  England  have  come  requests  for  the  Annual  Report  of  the 
League  and  literature  on  the  peace  movement,  especially  that 
bearing  on  the  educational  phase.  The  secretary  of  the  League 
is  to  spend  two  months  in  Europe  this  summer  for  the  purpose 
of  organizing  an  International  School  Peace  League,  of  which 
the  American  School  Peace  League  will  be  the  American 
Branch. 

The  great  number  of  inquiries  received  in  America  concern¬ 
ing  literature  have  impressed  the  League  with  the  importance 
ot  having  such  literature  placed  in  libraries.  To  answer  this 
need  the  League  has  compiled  a  list  of  books  and  pamphlets 
which  it  hopes  to  see  placed  in  every  library  of  the  country. 
This,  no  doubt,  will  further  the  cause  of  internationalism  in  a 
fundamental  and  permanent  way.  The  League  looks  to  the 
State  Branches  for  active  support  in  this  endeavor. 


THE  NEW  INTERNATIONALISM  IN  THE  SCHOOLS* 

Mrs.  May  Wright  Sewall,  National  Council  of 

Women. 

Mrs.  May  Wright  Sewall  spoke  of  the  important  part  that 
has  been  taken  by  the  International  Council  of  Women  in  the 
peace  movement.  Organized  in  Washington  twenty-two  years 
ago,  it  is  represented  in  twenty-four  different  countries,  and 
has  a  membership  of  seven  million  members,  with  Lady  Aber¬ 
deen  as  president.  This  great  international  force  works  not 
only  for  a  common  moral  standard,  a  common  standard  of  per¬ 
sonal  purity  and  personal  chastity  by  men  and  women,  not  only 
for  the  abolition  of  legal  and  political  discriminations  in  the 
status  of  men  and  women,  but  for  peace  and  better  international 


72 


relations.  It  endeavors  to  send  teachers  out  of  their  own 
countries  to  visit  the  schools  of  other  countries  in  order  that 
by  an  exchange  of  ideas  better  international  acquaintance  and 
understanding  may  be  promoted. 

Mrs.  Sewall  believes  that  an  important  work  is  to  be  done 
in  the  United  States  in  preparing  a  history  so  based  upon  feel¬ 
ings  of  mutual  respect  between  the  sections  that  it  may  be 
used  alike  on  both  sides  of  the  Mason  and  Dixon  line.  Mrs. 
Sewall  made  a  strong  plea  also  for  a  history  that  would  teach 
Tvoys  and  girls  respect  for  the  various  races  and  nations  of  the 
world  by  showing  what  each  had  contributed  to  the  world’s 
welfare.  She  condemned  the  use  of  contemptuous  epithets  in 
speaking  of  other  peoples.  In  response  to  a  request  for  advice 
from  a  former  pupil,  who  is  teaching  in  a  community  in  which 
there  is  a  large  proportion  of  foreign  born  children,  she  had 
written  :  “Teach  your  children  to  say  ‘Angelo’  and  not  ‘Dago’ 
when  they  look  at  an  Italian  child.  Think  of  the  influence  of 
that  race  for  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  years  upon  the  whole 
world.  As  for  the  Hebrew,  teach  the  child  to  say  Moses  and 
David  and  Jesus,  and  he  shall  not  dare  to  feel  rebellious  con¬ 
tempt.” 

Mrs.  Sewall’s  closing  remarks,  which  were  full  of  broad- 
spirited  internationalism,  were  as  follows  : 

Now  we  are  a  composite  people.  We  are  growing  more  and 
more  composite,  and  the  more  composite  we  become  the  more 
nearly  shall  we  become  children  of  God,  that  human  reflection 
made  in  His  own  nature.  That  God-creature  was  not  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  descent,  and  we  are  not  to  pride  ourselves  because  we 
are  Angles  or  Saxons  or  Danes  or  Norse  or  Swedes  or  Dutch 
or  Germans  or  Irish  or  Scotch  or  Italians  or  Greeks,  but  be¬ 
cause  we  are  of  humanity,  and  to  the  degree  that  we  can  enter 
into  the  spirit  of  every  section  of  this  composite  humanity  to 
which  we  belong,  to  that  degree  do  we  enter  into  its  wholeness, 
into  its  fullness,  to  that  degree  are  we  really  international,  to 
that  degree  shall  we  be  able  to  teach  internationalism  to  our 
children,  and  to  no  other  degree  ;  not  by  arrogance,  not  by 
contempt,  but  by  a  recognition  that  within  this  humanity  every 
section  of  it  has  been  in  its  own  time,  and  it  is  to  be  in  its  own 
time,  that  chosen  people  created  to  make  its  distinct  contribu¬ 
tion  to  the  whole  race.  Recognizing  what  the  distinct  contri¬ 
bution  of  every  people  that  has  in  the  past  come  to  its  fullness 
has  been,  recognizing  that  we  are  fractional  if  we  exclude 


73 


them  from  our  affection  and  our  reverence,  we  shall  be  able  to 
teach  them  that  greater  sentiment,  that  patriotism,  that  love 
of  all  humanity  which  will  make  us  feel  that  no  service  to  our 
country  is  a  real  service,  an  abiding  or  a  permanent  service, 
that  makes  and  breeds  the  sense  of  isolation.  It  is  only  noble 
in  so  far  as  it  is  a  service  of  the  whole.  Recognizing  that  no 
fractional  pait  of  humanity  can  permanently  be  advanced  at  the 
expense  of  any  other  fractional  part  or  at  the  expense  of  all 
the  rest,  and  that  no  part  can  be  left  out,  no  part  can  any 
more  be  left  out  of  our  recognition  of  it  than  of  God’s  creation 
of  it. 

I  do  believe  it  is  the  sentiment  which  is  destined  to  bind  all 
the  separate  fractions  of  the  world  together  in  the  sense  of  one¬ 
ness  in  which  each  nation  will  feel  a  larger,  a  deeper,  a  more 
abounding  and  fruitful  patriotism  than  has  ever  been  felt  by 
any  branch  of  humanity,  at  the  same  time  recognizing  the  fact 
that  its  patriotism  even  is  to  be  measured  by  the  service  of  its 
country  to  the  whole.  That  is  what  our  International  Council 
stands  for. 

Mrs.  Anna  Sturges  Duryea  of  the  International  School  of 
Peace  spoke  briefly  on  her  work  among  women’s  clubs. 


THE  BURRITT  CELEBRATION. 

Historic  Pilgrimage  of  the  Friends  of  Peace  to  New  Britain. 

The  Burritt  Celebration  at  New  Britain,  Tuesday  afternoon 
and  evening,  was  the  most  unique  and  probably  the  most  pic¬ 
turesque  event  in  the  annals  of  the  peace  movement.  It  is 
doubtful  if  any  American  citizen  or  citizen  of  whatever  nation 
ever  received  the  same  kind  of  tribute  as  was  given  that  day 
to  Burritt.  The  day  was  full  of  international  significance. 
Elihu  Burritt  was  born  in  New  Britain  December  io,  1810,  and 
this  is  his  anniversary  year;  but  his  friends  felt  that  a  cente¬ 
nary  celebration  in  his  honor  would  be  most  impressive  as  a 
part  of  the  program  of  the  New  England  Peace  Congress.  A 
committee  of  seventy  persons  had  been  appointed  to  arrange 
for  the  occasion.  So  much  faithful  work  was  put  into  the  cele¬ 
bration  by  a  great  number  of  people  that  it  would  be  invidious 
to  single  out  any  individual  as  the  leading  spirit.  But  the  suc¬ 
cess  realized  was  due  in  a  large  degree  to  the  originality  and 
enterprise  of  Rev.  Herbert  A.  Jump,  pastor  of  the  First 


74 


ELIHU  BURRITT 
CENTENNIAL  181C-I9IO 


75 


Congregational  Church,  who  kept  the  idea  constantly  before 
the  people,  proposed  attractive  features  and  secured  worthy 
speakers.  Mr.  Jump  showed  what  may  be  done  to  popularize 
the  peace  movement  in  a  manner  adapted  to  the  American 
mind.*  Great  credit  was  also  due  to  Mrs.  Annie  S.  Churchill, 
secretary  of  the  Burritt  Memorial  Committee,  who  has  for  sev¬ 
eral  years  been  active  in  raising  a  fund  for  a  permanent  Burritt 
memorial ;  to  her  daughter,  Miss  Rose  Churchill ;  and  to  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  George  S.  Talcott,  for  their  influence  in  maintaining 
a  rare  appropriateness  and  dignity  in  the  program  ;  to  Hon. 
George  M.  Landers,  Prof.  Marcus  White  and  others. 

The  celebration  was  an  expression  of  all  the  twenty-seven 
nationalities  represented  in  New  Britain.  Everybody  was  en¬ 
thusiastic  in  doing  his  part  quite  as  much  as  if  he  had  been  a 
personal  friend  and  life-long  neighbor  of  Mr.  Burritt.  The 
whole  city  of  fifty  thousand  people  gave  up  the  ordinary  duties 
of  the  day  for  the  celebration.  Stores,  banks,  factories,  schools 
and  offices,  all  were  closed.  Public  buildings  on  the  main 
streets  and  private  residences  everywhere  were  decorated  with 
flags  and  bunting.  At  Central  Park  one  could  see  the  flags  of 
all  nations.  A  great  Burritt  banner  hung  across  one  of  the 
main  squares  of  the  city  bearing  Goldwin  Smith’s  sentiment, 
now  the  motto  adopted  by  the  Cosmopolitan  Clubs,  “  Above  all 
nations  is  humanity.” 

The  guests  of  the  Congress  were  carried  from  Hartford  to 
New  Britain  by  the  citizens  of  the  latter  city  in  automobiles. 
On  each  automobile  were  two  little  pennants,  one  white,  the 
other  green,  designated  as  the  Burritt  colors,  which  were  every¬ 
where  displayed  throughout  the  city.  White  stood  for  the 
principle  of  peace  ;  green  symbolized  the  “Olive  Leaf  Mission,” 
the  name  given  to  the  press  sheets  on  which  Mr.  Burritt  circu¬ 
lated  short  articles  on  peace  and  fraternity  to  the  leading  peri¬ 
odicals  of  the  world  half  a  century  ago.  Every  delegate  in 
Hartford  was  provided  with  a  package  of  literature  containing 
a  sketch  of  the  life  of  Burritt,  other  souvenirs  and  a  program 
of  exercises. 

The  automobile  parties,  having  been  driven  about  the  prin¬ 
cipal  streets,  that  they  might  see  the  decorations  and  get  a 
glimpse  of  the  homes  of  this  thriving  city,  went  in  procession 
to  the  cemetery,  where  seats  were  provided  for  them  on  a  grand 
stand  erected  before  a  large  open  space  near  Mr.  Burritt’s  grave. 

*  For  an  account  of  the  celebration  by  Mr.  Jump,  see  New  York  Independent ,  May  19,  1910, 
and  for  his  suggestion  as  to  the  value  of  such  an  occasion  in  teaching  patriotism,  see  Christian 
Register ,  June  23,  1910. 


76 


THE  NATIONS  AT  THE  GRAVE  OF  BURRITT. 


77 


THE  PROCESSION. 

A  great  civic  procession,  which  had  started  from  the  center 
of  the  city,  marched  into  the  cemetery,  the  head  of  the  pro¬ 
cession  reaching  there  just  as  the  delegates  became  seated. 
Besides  the  usual  escort  of  police  came  the  Mayor  and  mem¬ 
bers  cf  the  Common  Council,  who  took  seats  on  the  grand 
stand  just  in  the  rear  of  the  speakers,  a  group  of  whom  sur¬ 
rounded  Hon.  James  Brown  Scott,  the  orator  of  the  day. 
Next  came  a  series  of  emblematic  floats  and  several  divisions 
of  school  children,  three  thousand  in  all,  public  schools  and 
parochial  schools  joining  together,  each  preceded  by  banner 
bearers  with  the  names  of  the  schools,  among  them  the  Burritt 
School,  named  in  honor  of  the  hero  of  peace  ;  between  some 
of  the  school  divisions  marched  bands. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  floats  was  that  of  the 
“international  group,”  representing  fifteen  nations  in  native 
costume.  These  were  England,  Germany,  Ireland,  Sweden, 
Scotland,  Hebrews,  Denmark,  China,  Russia,  Italy,  Poland, 
France,  Persia,  Greece  and  America.  The  members  dis¬ 
mounted  and  passed  the  reviewing  stand  in  pairs,  a  man  carry¬ 
ing  his  national  flag,  accompanied  by  a  woman  carrying  a  laurel 
wreath.  Each  of  these  halted  before  the  delegates,  made  a 
bow,  dipped  the  national  color  and  declared  itself  to  be  the 
tribute  to  Elihu  Burritt  of  the  nation  represented,  repeating 
such  phrases  as  “England’s  tribute,”  “Germany’s  tribute,” 
with  pride  and  enthusiasm.  No  national  delegation  made  more 
of  an  impression  than  that  of  Persia,  which  reminded  the 
spectators  that  Mr.  Burritt’s  interest  in  Oriental  languages  had 
taken  him  intellectually  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  which  had 
now  come  back  to  do  him  homage.  When  the  American 
white-bordered  banner,  the  largest  of  all,  bringing  up  the 
rear,  saluted  the  audience,  the  man  who  bore  it  won  a  round  of 
applause  by  saying,  “America,  the  half  brother  of  all  nations, 
greets  you.” 

The  members  of  the  “international  group”  then  laid 
wreaths  around  sockets  about  Burritt  s  grave,  and  placed  their 
flags  in  the  sockets  where  they  could  be  seen  from  the  grand 
stand.  The  general  procession  of  symbolic  floats  was  led  by 
classes  of  the  High  School,  each  representing  an  idea  which 
was  wrought  out  with  great  care  in  decoration  and  costume. 
The  Seniors  personified  the  arts  of  peace.  The  Juniors  en¬ 
acted  a  scene  from  the  life  of  William  Penn.  The  Sophomores 


78 


NATIONS  SALUTING 


79 


illustrated  the  theme  “Peace  and  the  Nations.”  The  Fresh¬ 
men  recalled  the  vision  of  the  Hebrew  prophet  when  he  pro¬ 
claimed  the  coming  of  the  day  of  universal  peace. 

The  second  division  of  floats  was  the  contribution  of  various 
societies,  civic  and  fraternal,  such  as  the  Elks,  Eagles,  Knights 
of  Pythias,  Red  Men,  United  German  Societies,  Hebrew 
Societies,  and  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association,  each  in 
some  way  symbolizing  peace  or  acting  some  scene  from  lodge 
ritual  exemplifying  a  virtue. 

The  most  significant  floats  were  those  of  the  different  nation¬ 
alities.  All  of  them  testified  to  the  cooperative  spirit  of  a 
respectable  body  of  foreign  descended  citizens.  Some  of  the 
floats,  those  of  the  Italians  and  Germans,  for  example,  were 
escorted  by  hundreds  of  people  of  the  nationality  which  they 
represented,  and  brought  home  to  the  dullest  observer  the 
thought  that  was  frequently  heard  from  the  lips  of  speakers 
that  “  America  is  the  melting  pot  of  the  nations.”  One  of 
the  most  original  floats  was  that  of  the  Swedish  contingent, 
which  illustrated  the  awards  of  the  Nobel  prize.  The  float  of 
the  United  Jewish  Societies  exemplified  the  Scriptural  passage, 
“  A  little  child  shall  lead  them,”  and  bore  mottoes  such  as, 
“One  nation  shall  not  lift  up  the  sword  against  another 
nation.”  The  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  division 
was  cosmopolitan,  being  made  up  of  twenty-five  nationalities 
bearing  the  motto,  “The  unity  of  the  nations.”  And  the 
committee  did  not  forget  to  include,  as  indispensable  to  the 
thought  of  the  day,  a  representation  of  the  little  red  school- 
house  where  Elihu  Burritt  was  educated. 

EXERCISES  AT  THE  GRAVE.  ORATION  OF  DR.  SCOTT. 

When  the  procession  had  passed  the  exercises  at  the  grave 
of  Burritt  began,  Principal  Marcus  White  of  the  State  Normal 
School  presiding.  A  school  children’s  chorus  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty  voices  sang,  under  the  charge  of  Prof.  G.  B.  Matthews. 
Invocation  was  made  by  Rev.  H.  W.  Maier,  pastor  of  Mr.  Bur- 
ritt’s  church.  The  chief  historic  part  of  the  exercises,  however, 
was  the  oration  by  Dr.  James  Brown  Scott  of  Washington. 
The  oration  (see  the  full  report  elsewhere)  was  short,  apprecia¬ 
tive  and  eloquent.  A  more  appropriate  choice  for  speaker 
could  not  have  been  made,  for  he,  like  William  Ladd  and  Elihu 
Burritt,  has  recently  stood  preeminently  for  a  High  Court  of 
Nations.  But  what  was  of  most  significance  in  his  address 
could  hardly  be  realized  at  the  time  by  his  hearers,  and  only 


8q 


MARCH  OF  THE  SCHOOL  CHILDREN. 


8 1 


now  has  begun  to  be  understood  by  the  world.  This  was  the 
semi-official  announcement,  interpolated  by  Dr.  Scott  in  his 
speech,  that  the  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice,  for  which  the  State 
Department  of  the  United  States  has  been  working,  is  now 
actually  in  process  of  being  established. 

“  I  deem  it,”  he  said,  “a  great  privilege  to  be  able,  as  it  were, 
almost  officially  to  make  that  announcement  to  you  here  to-day 
iri  the  very  presence  of  the  spirit  of  the  man  who  proclaimed 
the  idea  not  merely  in  the  United  States,  but  popularized  it  in 
Europe,  and  made  it  a  living  reality.” 

After  the  exercises  at  the  grave  the  delegates  were  driven 
to  the  New  Britain  Institute,  where  they  were  received  by  the 
committee,  by  Miss  Anna  Strickland,  a  niece  of  Mr.  Burritt, 
and  other  representatives  of  his  family.  They  were  also  shown 
the  Burritt  manuscripts  and  books,  and  the  portrait  of  Mr.  Bur¬ 
ritt  made  by  the  British  artist,  Munns.  The  delegates  and  many 
citizens  of  New  Britain  then  went  to  supper  at  the  First,  the 
South  and  the  Methodist  Churches,  where  they  were  hospitably 
entertained. 

In  the  evening  a  Burritt  mass  meeting  was  held  in  the  Russ- 
win  Lyceum.  This  brought  out  such  a  large  audience  that  it 
was  necessary  to  have  parallel  exercises  in  the  First  Church,  to 
which  later  the  distinguished  speakers  repaired.  The  presiding 
officer  at  the  Lyceum  was  Hon.  C.  E.  Mitchell,  and  at  the  First 
Church  Rev.  Dr.  J.  H.  Bell.  There  was  a  jubilee  chorus  of 
trained  singers,  under  the  direction  of  Prof.  E.  F.  Laubin, 
which  rendered  Gounod’s  “  Gallia.”  There  was  also  a  mixed 
choir  from  St.  Mary’s  Parochial  School.  Invocation  was  made 
by  Rev.  Dr.  R.  F.  Moore,  pastor  of  St.  Joseph’s  Church,  and 
an  address  of  welcome  given  by  Mayor  Joseph  M.  Halloran. 
The  orator  of  the  evening  was  Rabbi  Stephen  S.  Wise,  of  the 
Free  Synagogue  of  New  York.  This  single  passage  was  the 
keynote  of  his  address  :  “  Back  of  every  interest  and  concern 
and  endeavor  of  the  life  of  Elihu  Burritt  lay  his  passion  for  . 
humanity.  He  was  one  of  the  earliest  and  greatest  humanita¬ 
rians  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Nothing  human  was  remote 
from  him  ;  nothing  human  failed  to  arouse  the  interest  and  to 
stir  the  soul  of  ‘this  most  persistent  prophet  of  reform.’  ” 

Rabbi  Wise  was  followed  by  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers  and 
ex-Governor  Utter  of  Rhode  Island,  who  made  brief  addresses. 
During  an  interval  in  the  program  Mr.  Jump  announced  the 
result  of  the  competition  among  the  pupils  of  the  schools  of 
New  Britain  for  the  best  essays  on  the  life  of  Mr.  Burritt. 


82 


THE  NATIONS  SHALL  BEAT  THEIR  SWORDS  INTO  PLOUGHSHARES. 


83 


When  the  meeting  closed  the  delegates  felt  that  New  Britain, 
in  honoring  Mr.  Burritt,  had  consecrated  permanently  for  its 
new  generation  by  this  ever-memorable  festival  the  highest 
conceptions  of  justice  and  fraternity  that  prevail  in  the  world. 


ELIHU  BURRITT. 

Hon.  James  Brown  Scott,  Solicitor  of  the  Department 

of  State. 

The  life  of  Elihu  Burritt,  which  has  been  a  source  of  pride 
to  New  Britain  and  an  inspiration  to  the  humble  of  many  lands, 
is,  from  the  worldly  point  of  view,  singularly  uneventful.  Born 
in  1810  in  New  Britain,  in  Connecticut,  he  died  in  his  native 
town  in  1879,  after  a  lifetime  devoted  to  the  service  of  mankind. 
A  blacksmith  by  trade,  a  student  by  instinct,  a  scholar  by  at¬ 
tainment,  an  author  of  eminence,  a  benefactor  and  philanthropist 
by  profession,  he  has  written  his  name  large  in  the  history  of 
international  development.  To  bring  the  nations  together  into 
fellowship ;  to  point  out  the  likeness  of  the  peoples,  rather  than 
to  accentuate  their  differences  ;  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of 
ideas  and  ideals  by  travel,  personal  intercourse  and  correspond¬ 
ence  ;  to  call  into  being  a  congress  of  nations  for  the  codifica¬ 
tion  of  the  laws  of  nations  and  an  international  court  for  their 
interpretation  and  application  to  controversies,  so  that  an  appeal 
to  arms  should  be  unnecessary — these  were  his  aims,  and  the 
realization  of  these  was  in  part  his  personal  achievement. 

Why  do  the  good  people  of  New  Britain  celebrate  the  cen¬ 
tennial  of  his  birth,  and  why  do  representatives  of  the  nations 
cluster  about  his  grave  ?  It  is  not  because  of  his  learning, 
however  varied  and  profound,  and  his  knowledge  acquired  amid 
untoward  and  distressing  circumstances.  It  is  not  because  of 
his  character,  although  worthy  of  veneration  and  imitation,  for 
beauty  and  purity  of  character  would  not  alone  have  attracted 
general  attention.  Nor  is  it  on  account  of  his  ability,  for  ability 
does  not  of  itself  ensure  remembrance.  Wide  and  varied  learn¬ 
ing  and  knowledge,  irreproachable  character  and  ability  of  a 
high  order  were  indeed  his,  but  singly  or  collectively  they  would 
not  in  themselves  have  sufficed  to  make  his  name  “  sweet  as 
honey  on  the  lips  of  men.”  The  gratitude  of  posterity  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  he  devoted  himself  unflinchingly  and  unselfishly 
to  the  service  of  an  ideal  —  an  ideal  whose  realization  would 
redound,  not  merely  to  the  credit  of  himself  and  his  country, 


84 


but  which  would  promote  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  his  fel- 
lowmen,  elevate  the  race,  and  profoundly  modify  and  purify  the 
type  of  our  common  civilization.  The  ideal  to  which  his  life 
and  his  thought  were  consecrated  was  the  establishment  of  a 
Congress  of  Nations  to  formulate  and  declare  the  law,  and  a 
Court  of  Nations  to  interpret  the  law,  codified  or  created  by  the 
Congress  of  Nations,  whereby  international  controversies  might 
peaceably  be  settled  by  the  principles  of  justice  without  resort 

to  force. 

The  idea  was  not  original,  for  it  has  been  the  dream  and  hope 
of  centuries  ;  but  his  was  the  honor  to  proclaim  it  from  the 
housetop,  to  organize  congresses  in  its  behalf  in  England  and 
on  the  Continent,  and  to  create  a  public  opinion  for  its  realiza¬ 
tion.  His  work  was  interrupted  by  wars  on  the  Continent  and 
a  civil  war  at  home  ;  he  was  not  permitted  to  witness  a  Pan- 
American  Conference  or  to  acclaim  a  Peace  Conference  at  The 
Hague.  His  feet  were  entangled  in  the  brier  and  the  brush, 
and  the  forest  hid  from  his  anxious  eyes  the  light  beyond. 
The  promised  land  he  did  not  see,  but  he  set  in  motion  the 
forces  which  have  partially  realized  the  hope  that  burned  within 
him  and  the  aspiration  that  neither  slumbered  nor  slept.  It  is 
for  service  actually  rendered  to  the  cause  of  international  right¬ 
eousness  and  international  peace  that  the  world  holds  him  in 
grateful  remembrance  and  hails  him  as  a  benefactor  of  his  kind. 

The  plan  for  a  Congress  and  a  Court  of  Nations  which  Mr. 
Burritt  explained  and  laid  before  the  Peace  Conferences  of 
Brussels  (1848),  Paris  (1849),  Frankfort  (1850),  London  (1851), 
was  the  plan  of  his  fellow-countryman,  William  Ladd.  The 
Congress  was,  to  quote  from  Ladd  s  little  “  Essay  on  a  Congress 
of  Nations,”  published  in  1840,  to  be  “a  Congress  of  ambassa¬ 
dors  from  all  those  Christian  and  civilized  nations  who  should 
choose  to  send  them,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  principles 
of  international  law  by  compact  and  agreement,  of  the  nature 
of  a  mutual  treaty,  and  also  of  devising  and  promoting  plans 
for  the  preservation  of  peace,  and  meliorating  the  conditions 
of  man.”*  In  this  Congress  the  nations  were  to  appear  and  to 
vote  as  equals,  and  the  result  of  their  labors  was  to  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  nations  for  ratification  by  the  appropriate  internal 
organs. 

The  resemblance  between  Mr.  Ladd’s  Congress  and  the 
august  assembly  convoked  in  1899  by  the  Czar  of  all  the  Russias 
is  apparent,  and  the  program  of  the  Hague  Conferences  is 


*  Essay,  page  4. 


85 


strikingly  like  the  program  drawn  up  and  published  by  Mr. 
Ladd.  “  The  Congress  of  Nations,”  he  said,  “  is  to  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  internal  affairs  of  nations,  or  with  insurrections, 
revolutions  or  contending  factions  of  people  or  princes,  or  with 
forms  of  government,  but  solely  to  concern  themselves  with 
the  intercourse  of  nations  in  peace  and  war  :  (i)  To  define  the 
rights  of  belligerents  towards  each  other ;  and  endeavor,  as 
much  as  possible,  to  abate  the  horrors  of  war,  lessen  its  fre¬ 
quency  and  promote  its  termination.  (2)  To  settle  the  rights 
of  neutrals,  and  thus  abate  the  evils  which  war  inflicts  on  those 
nations  that  are  desirous  of  remaining  in  peace.  (3)  To  agree 
on  measures  of  utility  to  mankind  in  a  state  of  peace.  (4)  To 
organize  a  Court  of  Nations.  These  are  four  great  divisions 
of  the  labors  of  the  proposed  Congress  of  Nations.”* 

Mr.  Ladd’s  project,  reasonable  in  all  its  parts,  appealed  to 
reason,  and  neither  the  favor  of  princes  nor  the  force  at  their 
disposal  was  to  be  relied  upon  to  secure  its  acceptance.  Peace 
societies  were  to  create  public  opinion,  and  public  opinion, 
which  crowns  and  uncrowns  kings,  would  institute  both  Con¬ 
gress  and  Court.  “The  best  tribute  to  his  clear  and  judicious 
mind  is,”  to  quote  the  words  of  Mr.  Burritt,  “that  the  main 
proposition  as  he  developed  it  has  been  pressed  upon  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  public  mind  of  Christendom  ever  since  his  day, 
without  amendment,  addition  or  subtraction.”  f  Mr.  Burritt 
ascribed  to  himself  the  modest  role  of  pressing  the  project 
“  upon  the  consideration  of  the  public  mind  of  Christendom  ”  ; 
but  the  spirit  of  the  master  passed  so  completely  into  the  dis¬ 
ciple,  and  the  plan  of  the  one  and  the  work  of  the  other  are  so 
completely  merged  in  the  result,  that  the  honor  of  the  great 
achievement  may  not  improperly  be  divided  between  them. 

The  project  for  a  Congress  of  Nations  was  naturally  upper¬ 
most  in  the  thoughts  of  Mr.  Ladd  and  Mr.  Burritt,  for  it  was 
the  means  whereby  certainty  and  precision  were  to  be  given  to 
the  laws  of  nations  and  their  principles  reduced  to  the  form  of 
a  code,  both  for  the  guidance  of  the  nations  in  their  mutual 
intercourse  and  of  the  Court  of  Nations,  to  be  created  by  the 
Congress,  in  the  interpretation  of  the  laws  and  their  application 
to  a  concrete  case  submitted  for  determination.  But  the  Con¬ 
gress,  however  important,  was  not  the  chief  object  of  their  solic¬ 
itude.  It  was  to  subserve  a  temporary  purpose,  namely,  the 
codification  of  the  laws  of  nations ;  the  Court  of  Nations,  on 


*  Essay,  page  16.  .  ,  ..... 

t  Mr  Burritt  in  Hemenway’s  “  Life  of  William  Ladd,”  page  15.  For  a  brief  sketch  of  William 
Ladd,  see  “  New  Hampshire  in  the  Peace  Movement,”  in  the  Appendix  to  this  report. 


86 


the  contrary,  the  creature  of  its  hands,  was  to  be  permanent, 
and  in  its  permanency  they  foresaw  its  usefulness.  A  perman¬ 
ent  tribunal  was  to  be  at  hand  to  decide  the  controversy.  It 
was  not  to  be  created  as  and  when  the  controversy  arose  ;  it 
was  to  await  the  case,  not  to  have  the  case  wait  for  it ;  and  in 
its  prompt  and  impartial  determination  of  the  controversies  sub¬ 
mitted  Mr.  Ladd  and  Mr.  Burritt  predicted  that  the  peaceful 
settlement  of  international  disputes,  without  a  resort  to  force, 
would  maintain  peace,  to  such  a  degree  indeed  that  war  would 
be  as  a  stranger  and  unwelcome  visitant  in  a  strange  land. 
Disarmament,  or  at  least  the  reduction  of  armament,  would  be 
a  consequence,  not  a  condition  precedent ;  and  the  peace  of  the 
world  would  be  a  peace  founded  upon  justice  and  maintained 
by  an  enlightened  and  disciplined  public  conscience,  voiced  by 
a  no  less  enlightened  public  opinion. 

From  Mr.  Burritt’s  numerous  addresses  on  the  Congress  and 
Court  of  Nations,  I  select  for  analysis  the  one  delivered  before 
the  congress  at  Paris  in  1849,  under  the  presidency  of  the 
illustrious  Victor  Hugo. 

In  the  opening  sentence  Mr.  Burritt  credits  William  Penn  with 
the  idea,  and  is  careful,  as  was  the  American  delegation  at  the 
second  Hague  Conference,  to  insist  that  the  project  is  not 
American.*  The  essence  of  the  plan  is  the  convocation  of  a 
Congress  of  Nations,  ‘‘for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  well- 
defined  code  of  international  law,  and  a  high  court  of  adjudi¬ 
cation  to  interpret  and  apply  it  in  the  settlement  of  all  inter¬ 
national  disputes  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  arranged  by 
negotiation.” 

Mr.  Burritt  here  pauses  to  remark  that  “  a  similar  proposi¬ 
tion  emanated  from  this  metropolis  more  than  two  centuries 
ago,”  a  graceful  reference  to  the  Nouveau  Cynee  published  by 
Emeric  Cruce  at  Paris  in  1623.  “  The  great  tribunal  which 

he  proposed  was  a  perpetual  court  of  equity  composed  of  a 
representative  from  every  recognized  kingdom  or  government 
in  the  world.  The  only  material  difference,”  Mr.  Burritt 
generously  continues,  “  between  the  original  and  the  present 
form  of  the  project  is  not  a  change,  but  an  addition.” 

After  calling  attention  to  the  doubt  and  uncertainty  of  many 
of  the  rules  of  international  law,  and  the  need  for  certainty 
and  precision,  Mr.  Burritt  then  says  :  “  The  first  work  pre¬ 

scribed  for  a  Congress  of  Nations  would  be  to  revise  and 
reconstruct  the  present  code  of  international  law,  as  it  has 


*  See  Mr.  Burritt’s  address  before  the  Frankfort  Congress  (1850). 


been  called,  and  then  to  present  it  for  ratification  to  the  differ¬ 
ent  national  assemblies  represented  in  the  Congress.”  Mr. 
Burritt  believed  that  “  each  nation  would  send  to  the  Congress 
its  most  profound  statesmen,  or  juris-consults,  so  that  all  the 
legal  wisdom  and  experience  of  the  age  would  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  its  deliberations.”  The  composition  of  this  assem¬ 
bly  is,  however  difficult,  a  matter  of  detail,  and  Mr.  Burritt 
proposes,  by  way  of  example,  one  delegate  for  every  million 
of  inhabitants.  This  would  be  a  representative — the  Hague 
Conference  was  a  diplomatic  assembly.  But,  however  consti¬ 
tuted,  “  their  first  great  work  would  be  merely  to  revise  a 
system  of  principles,  precedents  and  opinions,  which  had 
already  acquired  the  name,  and  even  part  of  the  authority,  of 
an  international  code.”  With  the  completion  of  the  code  “  we 
would,”  he  says,  “  have  taken  the  first  great  step  in  organizing 
peace  in  the  society  of  nations.  We  have  established  a  basis 
upon  which  their  intercourse  may  be  regulated  by  clearly 
defined  and  solemnly  recognized  principles  of  justice  and 
equity.” 

This  leads  to  the  next  step  of  equal  importance,  namely, 
the  constitution  of  “  a  permanent  international  tribunal,  which 
shall  interpret  and  apply  this  code  in  the  adjudication  of  ques¬ 
tions  submitted  to  its  decision.”  In  composing  this  august 
tribunal,  the  American  origin  of  the  plan  is  patent,  for  each 
nation  is  to  appoint  two  judges  —  a  number  suggested,  as  Mr. 
Burritt  says,  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  which  each 
State,  large  or  small,  is  represented  by  two  Senators.  But  here 
the  similarity  stops,  for  Mr.  Burritt  neither  dreams  of  nor  pro¬ 
poses  a  confederation,  nor  a  United  States  of  the  world. 

“  Neither  the  Congress  nor  the  High  Contracting  Nations 
would'  pretend  to  exercise  any  jurisdiction  over  the  internal 
affairs  of  a  country,  or  exert  any  direct  political  influence  upon 
its  institutions.  The  great  international  tribunal  which  we 
propose  would  not  be  like  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  to  which  not  only  the  thirty  little  republics,  but  every 
inhabitant  of  the  Union,  may  appeal  for  its  decision  in  any 
case  that  cannot  be  settled  by  inferior  authorities.  The  differ¬ 
ent  nations  would  still  retain  all  the  prerogatives  of  their 
mutual  independence.  Even  if  differences  arose  between  them, 
they  would  endeavor  to  settle  them  as  before,  by  negotiation. 
But  if  that  medium  failed  to  effect  an  honorable  and  satisfac¬ 
tory  adjustment,  they  could  then  refer  the  matter  in  dispute  to 
the  arbitration  of  this  High  Court,  which,  in  concert  with 


88 


each  other,  they  had  constituted  for  that  purpose.”  Mr.  Burritt 
here  makes  a  wise  and  prophetic  observation  :  “  The  existence 

of  such  a  last  court  of  appeal  would  inevitably  facilitate  the 
arrangement  of  these  questions  by  negotiation,  which  is  now 
often  embarrassed  and  thwarted  by  its  dangerous  proximity  to 
an  appeal  to  arms.” 

In  this  orderly  and  reasonable  proceeding  Mr.  Burritt  sees  a 
substitute  for  war  and  the  decrease  of  armament  held  in  read¬ 
iness  for  an  appeal  to  the  sword  But  to  quote  the  exact 
language  of  Mr.  Burritt  on  this  important  point :  “Whenever 
a  difficulty  arose  between  two  countries,  the  last  resort,  after 
negotiation  had  failed,  would  not  suggest  to  the  mind  of  either 
party  the  terrible  trial  of  the  battlefield,  but  the  calm,  impar¬ 
tial  and  peaceful  adjudication  of  the  High  Tribunal  of  the 
Peoples.  And  when  once  the  idea  of  war  has  been  displaced 
in  the  minds  of  nations  by  the  idea  of  a  quiet  administration 
of  justice  and  equity,  preparations  for  war,  and  all  the  policies 
which  it  requires  and  creates,  will  gradually  disappear  from 
international  society.  The  different  nations  would  soon  ac¬ 
custom  themselves  to  refer  their  cases  to  this  High  Court  of 
Appeal  with  as  much  confidence  as  the  different  States  of  the 
American  Union  now  submit  their  controversies  to  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  On  the  list  of 
cases  brought  before  that  Court  may  be  found  sometimes  one 
entitled  ‘  New  York  v.  Virginia,’  or  ‘  Pennsylvania  v.  Ohio  ’  ; 
and,  however  heavily  the  verdict  may  bear  upon  one  of  the 
parties,  scarcely  a  murmur  is  heard  against  it.  In  like  manner 
we  might  see  reported  among  other  decisions  of  this  interna¬ 
tional  tribunal  the  case  of  ‘France  v.  England,’  ‘  Denmark  v. 
Prussia,’  or  ‘Mexico  v.  the  United  States.’  ” 

The  Congress  of  Nations  was  to  provide  the  law  which  the 
Court  was  to  interpret  and  apply,  but  Mr.  Burritt  saw  that  the 
Court  might  be  empty  and  without  business  unless  nations 
pledged  themselves  to  submit  to  its  determination  controversies 
as  they  arose.  Hence  he  was  an  outspoken  partisan  of  treaties 
of  arbitration. 

Such  in  brief  is  the  plan  for  which  Mr.  Burritt  labored  un¬ 
ceasingly,  both  in  Europe  and  America.  What  is  the  result  of 
his  labors  and  of  the  public  opinion  which  he  created  in  no  small 
measure  ? 

An  International  Peace  Conference  has  twice  met  at  The 
Hague  and  has  seriously  begun  the  codification  and  amendment 
of  the  law  of  nations.  The  great  task  is  being  well  but 


8q 


gradually  done  ;  not,  as  Mr.  Burritt  hoped,  at  a  session,  but  piece¬ 
meal  and  in  many  sessions.  Nations  move  more  slowly  and 
deliberately  than  individuals,  but  they  move, —  a  fact  due  to  the 
persistent  effort  of  such  enlightened  souls  as  Elihu  Burritt.  A 
truly  permanent  court,  although  only  for  the  consideration  of 
prize  cases,  has  been  created,  and  a  project  for  a  permanent 
Court  of  Arbitral  Justice  has  been  adopted  by  the  second 
Hague  Peace  Conference  in  1907  and  recommended  to  the 
nations  for  establishment  through  diplomatic  channels.  This 
latter  project  was  presented  by  the  American  delegation  to  the 
second  Conference,  and  the  court  is  in  the  process  of  composi¬ 
tion,  with  every  prospect  of  success,-— a  fact  due  to  the  enlight¬ 
ened  initiative  of  our  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  P.  C.  Knox,  who 
enters  into  the  goodly  fellowship  of  the  Penns,  the  St.  Pierres, 
the  Rousseaus,  the  Benthams,  the  Kants,  the  Ladds  and  the 
Burritts. 

The  hundred  years  which  have  passed  since  the  birth  of  Mr. 
Burritt  have  brought  the  nations  into  close  and  intimate  con¬ 
tact  ;  a  federation  exists  well  nigh  in  fact,  if  not  in  name ;  the 
good  of  all  is  seen  to  be  better  than  the  advantage  of  the  many, 
not  to  speak  of  the  few,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  one  is  seen 
to  depend  upon  the  prosperity  of  all ;  the  interdependence  of 
nations  is  slowly  but  surely  winning  upon  the  independence 
and  isolation  of  nations ;  an  international  diplomatic  legislature 
ad  referendum  has  entered  into  being ;  the  foundations  of  an 
international  judiciary  have  been  laid,  and  the  instrumentalities 
for  the  organization  and  the  maintenance  of  peace  have  been 
created.  To  have  cooperated  in  the  great  movement  would 
have  been  an  honor  for  any  man  ;  to  have  been  at  once  a 
pioneer  and  leader  in  advancing  the  cause  of  international  jus¬ 
tice  and  peace  is  a  secure  title  to  grateful  remembrance.  The 
lowly  son  of  New  Britain  has  entered  into  the  company  of  the 
immortals. 


ELIHU  BURRITT* 

Dr.  Stephen  S.  Wise,  Rabbi  of  the  Free  Synagogue, 

New  York  City. 

Elihu  Burritt  may  be  said  to  have  been,  in  the  words  of 
Villari  touching  Savonarola,  “one  of  those  characters  who 
are  the  true  glories  of  the  human  race.”  Back  of  every 
interest  and  concern  and  endeavor  of  the  life  of  Elihu  Burritt 
lay  his  passion  for  humanity.  He  was  one  of  the  earliest  and 


9° 


greatest  humanitarians  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Nothing 
human  was  remote  from  him ;  nothing  human  failed  to  arouse 
the  interest  and  to  stir  the  soul  of  this  “most  persistent  prophet 
of  reform.”  He  said  to  a  friend  that  he  read  histories,  books 
that  dealt  with  the  people.  “  With  me  to  read  was  to  think, 
and  to  think  was  to  feel,  and  in  time  to  do,  so  far  as  my  limita¬ 
tion  would  permit,  for  people.” 

It  is  an  earnest  biographer  of  Elihu  Burritt  who  declares 
that  the  purpose  which  impelled  him  to  master  a  score  and 
more  of  foreign  tongues  was  not  only  a  native  love  of  learning, 
but  the  profound  desire  to  discover  the  essential  unity  of  lan¬ 
guage  and  their  inner  relationships.  He  ever  sought  for  unity 
among  men  and  things.  Infinitely  tolerant  of  difference  and 
diversity  was  he,  yet  passionately  desirous  of  furthering  that 
inner  unity  of  the  race  which  the  vision  of  the  seer  that  was 
his  own  foreknew  would  yet  come  to  pass  among  the  children 
of  men.  It  was  his  passion  for  humanity  that  moved  him  to 
cultivate  the  study  of  the  tongues  of  many  lands.  He  wished 
to  speak  many  languages,  in  mastery  of  tongues  to  multiply  the 
chains  that  linked  him  to  his  fellowmen  of  every  color  and 
speech  and  faith.  To  a  neighbor  he  once  said,  “  What  a  ter¬ 
rible  curse  that  old  tower  of  Babel  was,”  having  in  mind  the 
deep  truth  that  the  multiplicity  of  languages  has  operated  as  a 
dividing  force  among  the  peoples  of  the  earth. 

To  Elihu  Burritt  it  was  given  to  have  the  vision  of  the  future. 
He  had  a  consecrated  imagination ;  that  is,  he  had  consecration 
plus  imagination.  Alas,  that  so  many  good,  earnest,  conse¬ 
crated  men  and  women  have  no  imagination,  no  power  of  visual¬ 
ization  !  On  the  other  hand,  many  splendidly  imaginative  men 
and  women  lack  the  divine  touch  of  consecration,  do  not  use 
their  powers  to  higher  ends.  The  consecration  of  Elihu  Burritt 
was  quickened  by  imagination,  and  his  imagination  was  solem¬ 
nized  by  consecration. 

He  had  the  rare  power  of  projecting  himself  into  the  lives  of 
others,  not  of  compressing  the  lives  of  others  within  the  groove 
of  his  own  being,  but  of  putting  himself  in  his  neighbors’  place, 
feeling  their  sentiments,  thinking  their  thoughts,  living  their 
lives.  It  was  his  power  of  projection  into  the  woes  and  oppres¬ 
sions  and  tragedies  of  others  that  enabled  him  to  become  a 
truly  great  helper  of  men.  As  we  look  back  upon  the  story  of 
his  life  we  feel  that  this  man’s  life  spelt  victory.  He  amassed 
no  great  fortune,  he  gained  no  vast  fame  while  he  lived, 
he  achieved  no  power  in  the  largest  sense,  and  yet  his  life 


91 


was  illumined  by  vision  and  hallowed  by  the  consecration  of 
his  soul. 

We  thank  God  that  this  man  was  a  visionary,  that  he  dared 
to  dream  dreams.  The  idealist  has  been  called  the  practical 
man  with  a  long  look  ahead.  Such  a  visionary  was  Elihu  Bur- 
ritt.  He  dared  to  look  ahead,  to  scan  the  horizon  of  the  future, 
and  then  to  proclaim  his  vision  in  the  undismayed  accents  of 
God’s  own  prophet. 

Elihu  Burritt  was  a  pioneer.  Thus  his  was  the  first  publica¬ 
tion  in  America  to  devote  space  regularly  to  the  cause  of  peace. 
The  League  of  Universal  Brotherhood  was  one  of  his  noble 
dreams.  In  cherishing  this  ideal  he  reflected  the  spirit  of  Gar¬ 
rison  and  Phillips  and  the  seers  of  his  day.  But  there  was  some¬ 
thing  superb  in  the  intensely  practical  way  in  which  he  drafted 
the  plan  for  the  organization  of  a  society  that  should  carry  out 
the  great  ideal  of  international  and  universal  brotherhood. 

Surely  this  man  was  a  seer  who  foretold  the  coming  of  the 
day  when  international  tribunals  would  be  erected,  such  as  we 
to-day  have  in  part  in  the  Hague  Conferences,  and  such  as  we 
shall  have  to  an  even  fuller  extent  when  this  present  day  of 
mad  militarism  is  passed.  “  He  was  high  enough,  in  the  provi¬ 
dence  of  God,  to  catch  earlier  than  the  present  generation  the 
dawn  of  the  day  that  he  was  to  inaugurate.”  He  preached  the 
gospel  of  international  ethics,  of  international  courtesy,  of  inter¬ 
national  goodwill.  His  Golden  Rule  did  not  cease  to  be  a 
measure,  valid  and  binding,  at  the  crossing  of  national  boun¬ 
daries.  The  great  Peace  Congresses  of  1848  to  1851  in  Brus¬ 
sels,  Paris,  Frankfort  and  London,  were  largely  the  fruit  of  his 
work,  were  his  own  achievement.  The  International  Peace 
Congresses  of  our  own  time  came  fifty  years  and  more  after  the 
realization  of  the  conception  of  Burritt.  If  Burritt  had  done 
no  more  than  this,  namely,  to  present  before  these  peace  gath¬ 
erings  the  proposal  for  the  congress  of  nations,  he  had  done 
that  which  would  have  placed  his  name  among  the  immortals. 
We  to-day  breathe  cheaply  in  the  common  air  the  thing  he 
lived  and  strove  and  fought  for.  And  even  to-day,  after  half  a 
century,  we  are  barely  ready  to  embody  his  dream  in  the  deed. 

If  only  Burritt’s  great  plan  had  been  effected,  what  sorrow 
and  tears  and  agony  and  bloodshed  might  have  been  averted  for 
half  a  century  —  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  the  Spanish-Ameri- 
can  War,  the  British-Boer  War,  every  one  of  which  wars  might 
have  been  averted  upon  the  basis  of  reason  and  adjudicated 
according  to  the  dictates  of  honorable  justice.  One  cannot 


92 


help  contrasting  the  simple,  beautiful,  beneficent,  blessed  life 
of  Burritt  with  the  life  of  the  masterful,  imperial  Bismarck. 
The  time  will  come  when  Germany  will  do  less  reverence  to  the 
memory  of  the  man  of  iron,  who  spilt  blood  to  further  imperial 
plans,  and  mowed  down  nations  which  stood  in  the  pathway  of 
his  ruthless  lust  for  power.  Burritt  was  not  a  man  of  blood  and 
iron  5  he  was  a  man  of  love  and  wisdom  and  gentleness  and 
mercy,  and  his  name  is  blessed  because  he  blessed  the  world, 
because  he  never  spoke  a  word  or  thought,  or  wrought  a  deed 
that  did  not  inure  to  the  lasting  good  of  the  whole  race.  .  Burritt 
was  “  one  of  the  great  spirits  with  which  God  at  rare  intervals 
blesses  the  ages,  with  hearts  so  large  that  for  them  the  world  is 
their  country,  and  every  man,  especially  every  oppressed  man, 
is  a  brother.” 

What  would  Elihu  Burritt  say  if  he  were  living  to-day  touch¬ 
ing  the  discussion  of  inferior  races  and  the  big-navy  program 
and  the  strife  of  races  ?  It  is  treason  to  his  memory.  How 
fitting  it  were  that  the  town  of  New  Britain,  in  which  Elihu 
Burritt  lived  and  died,  should  make  an  earnest  attempt  to 
realize  his  high  dream  of  brotherhood.  This  cannot  be  achieved 
without  effort,  but  the  effort  would  be  supremely  worth  while. 
If  it  be  true  that  there  are  thirty  nationalities  represented  in 
the  citizenship  of  New  Britain,  what  a  fine  experimental  station 
in  interracial  and  inter-religious  comity  your  city  affords. 
Some  years  ago  I  believe  the  plan  was  mooted  to  establish  in 
the  city  of  his  birth  a  Brotherhood  House  to  be  known  by  his 
name.  I  should  be  recreant  to  the  inspiration  of  this  moment 
if  I  did  not  solemnly  adjure  you  to  do  what  in  you  lay  to  realize 
this  noble  deed.  As  the  fruit  of  this  centenary  commemora¬ 
tion,  let  there  arise  in  this  his  and  your  city  a  Burritt  Brother¬ 
hood  House,  and  let  that  Brotherhood  House  embody  the 
inspirations  and  sanctities  which  illumined  the  life  of  him  you 
honor.  Let  men,  whatever  tongue  they  speak,  whencesoever 
they  have  come,  learn  within  its  walls  the  magic  name  and 
mystery  of  brotherhood.  Let  it  be  known  throughout  the 
State  and  the  nation  and  the  world  that  in  the  city  in  which 
Elihu  Burritt  lived,  that  in  the  city  that  he  loved  with  the  ardor 
of  a  lover,  there  stands  a  house  consecrated  to  the  name  of 
brotherhood,  wherein  men  are  united  in  brotherhood’s  name, 
where  men  are  learning  to  translate  the  ideals  of  democracy 
into  daily  life  and  deed.  What  was  Elihu  Burritt’s  ideal  of 
brotherhood  but  democracy  writ  larger?  Ours  will  not  be  a 
democracy  worthy  of  the  name  unless  the  sovereign  rule  over 


93 


the  land  be  that  of  a  people  united  indivisibly  in  the  bonds  of 
brotherhood.  Democracy  is  not  an  end  to  itself.  It  must 
become  the  means  to  the  loftier  end  of  brotherhood,  or  else  it 
is  fated  to  decay.  The  brotherhood  ideal  of  Elihu  Burritt  is 
essentially  the  American  ideal.  It  is  the  ideal  of  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  of  Wendell  Phillips,  and  Burritt  is  not  the 
least  of  that  company  of  heroes  brave  and  noble  and  unwearied 
in  their  advocacy  of  the  brotherhood  ideal  amid  a  generation  of 
scoffers  and  doubters.  Even  as  in  the  illustration  of  the  first 
issue  of  The  Liberator  the  enslaved  negro  looked  up  and  pleaded 
for  release  from  the  yoke  of  bondage  in  the  cry,  “  Am  I  not  a 
man  and  a  brother  ?  ”  so  did  Elihu  Burritt,  letting  his  prophetic 
vision  range  over  the  whole  earth,  hear  all  the  sons  of  men  who 
were  in  bonds  pleading  to  him  in  piteous  and  yet  manly  accents, 
“Am  I  not  a  man  and  a  brother?”  Elihu  Burritt  listened, 
and  by  the  noble  eloquence  of  his  life  he  made  the  world  listen 
to  this  cry. 

It  may  be  that  I  rejoice  because  the  homage  which  is  paid 
this  day  at  the  shrine  of  Elihu  Burritt  witnesses  the  vindication 
of  the  ancient  ideal  of  Israel.  Israel  may  to-day,  after  three 
thousand  checkered,  tragic  years,  say  of  itself  in  the  words  of 
the  New  England  poet  of  peace  and  humanity,  “I  have  held 
my  fealty  good  to  the  human  brotherhood.”  Twenty-five  hun¬ 
dred  years  ago  the  mighty  prophet  of  Israel  declared  that  swords 
should  yet  be  beaten  into  ploughshares  and  spears  into  pruning 
hooks.  This  blacksmith  prophet  we  honor  to-night  may  be 
said,  in  an  almost  unique  measure,  to  have  fulfilled  the  ancient 
prophetic  idea.  He  did  not  cast  away  the  weapons  of  war,  but 
upon  the  anvil  of  his  high  and  daring  hope  is  beat  the  instru¬ 
ments  of  death-dealing  destruction  into  the  hopes  and  ideals 
and  passions  for  humanity  by  which  his  own  life  was  conse¬ 
crated,  and  which  with  inspiring  courage  he  commended  unto 
his  generation. 

The  life  and  work  of  Elihu  Burritt  represents  the  upward 
and  Godward  march  of  man.  Time  was  when  the  prophet  in 
Israel  pictured  the  dawn  of  the  day  of  desolation  in  the  worlds 
that  no  man  should  spare  his  brother.  Rightly  the  seer  divined 
that  hell  has  no  deeper  deeps  than  the  woe  of  a  world  in  which 
man  would  not  spare  his  brother.  Ages  later  another  teaching 
was  proclaimed,  purporting  to  be  the  voice  of  inflexible  loyalty 
to  one’s  country.  That  mischievous  slogan  of  another  day  has, 
alas,  found  its  heralding  voices  even  in  our  time,  in  which  we 
hear  it  anew  :  “  My  spear  knows  no  brother. 


94 


Let  us  to-night  look  up  and  thank  God  for  the  life  of  him  who 
helped  to  foresee  the  coming  of  the  time  when  men  shall  for¬ 
ever  have  put  behind  them  the  possibility  of  no  man  sparing 
his  brother  or  of  any  man’s  suffering  his  spear  to  know  no 
brother,  of  the  advent  of  the  nobler  day  in  which  every  man 
shall  proclaim  :  “  My  brother,  white  or  black,  yellow  or  brown, 
my  brother,  whatever  his  speech  or  race  or  faith  or  clime  — 
my  brother  shall  know  no  spear.” 

Truly  it  may  be  said  of  Elihu  Burritt  that  he  understood,  as 
did  no  other  man  in  his  time,  the  deepest  meaning  of  brother¬ 
hood.  In  a  dramatic  parable  recently  presented  upon  the  stage 
one  man  is  pictured  as  asking  another,  “  In  God’s  name,  who 
are  you  ?  ”  And  the  answer  is  given,  “  In  God’s  name,  your 
brother.”  If  man  be  addressed  in  the  name  of  God,  it  must 
needs  be  found  that  he  is  a  brother.  The  consciousness  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God  must  precede  the  recognition  of  human 
brotherhood. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  men  do  not  know  each  other  and  serve 
each  other  and  love  each  other  as  brothers,  they  have  no  right 
to  look  up  and  pray  “Father.”  Not  only,  as  we  have  said,  did 
Elihu  Burritt  hear  the  accents,  “  Am  I  not  a  man  and  a  brother  ?  ” 
but  he  looked  upon  every  man  as  a  brother,  and  it  is  the  glory 
of  his  life  to  have  sought  to  lift  every  brother  to  the  full  stature 
of  a  man. 


Center  Church  House,  Wednesday  Morning,  May  \\y  1910* 

Rev.  Flavel  S.  Luther,  D.  D.,  President  of  Trin¬ 
ity  College,  Presiding. 

Dean  Rogers  introduced  President  Flavel  S.  Luther  of 
Trinity  College  as  the  Chairman  of  the  meeting.  The  first 
speaker  presented  was  Dr.  T.  B.  Fitzpatrick  of  Knox  College, 
Toronto,  Canada,  whose  topic  was  “The  Peace  of  God.” 

In  defining  and  interpreting  the  meaning  of  his  thesis,  Dr. 
Fitzpatrick  said  : 


THE  PEACE  OF  GOD* 

Rev.  T.  B.  Fitzpatrick,  D.  D.,  Knox  College,  Toronto, 

Canada. 

Peace  is  not  a  manufactured  article.  It  is  a  divine  power. 
It  cannot  be  made,  or  kept,  by  any  human  contrivance ;  by 
battleships  or  Hague  Tribunals,  or  diplomatic  ingenuities  of 
any  kind.  The  word  which  is  to  command  peace  in  the  human 
heart  must  be  spoken  by  God.  He  alone  can  still  the  tumult 
of  the  soul,  bring  harmony  out  of  its  discords,  make  man  at 
peace  with  himself  and  with  his  fellows,  subdue  the  antago¬ 
nisms  of  classes  and  constrain  the  nations  to  learn  war  no 
more. 

What  is  the  cause  of  war  ?  What  kindles  the  flame  of 
hate  ?  What  nerves  the  aggressor  to  invasion  and  tyranny  ? 
What  sets  a  man  against  his  neighbor,  nation  against  nation  ? 
What  fills  the  world  with  unending  strife  ?  It  is  man’s  revolt 
against  his  Maker.  This  is  that  which  arrays  nation  against 
nation,  and  creates  that  mutual  suspicion  which  first  multiplies 
armaments  beyond  endurance,  and  then  at  a  trifle  of  miscon¬ 
ception  lets  loose  the  thunder  of  cannon,  and  would  incarna¬ 
dine  the  very  sea  itself. 

How  shall  God  act?  Strike  back?  That  is  not  his  way! 
He  will  not  have  caused  war  to  cease  till  he  has  prevailed  over 
the  enmity  of  man.  He  will  not  have  conquered  till  he  has 
won  the  heart  of  man  to  a  willing  obedience,  till  in  the  human 
heart  he  has  regained  his  throne  and  reign  where  self  had 
usurped  his  place.  That  which  alone  can  bring  peace  to  man 


9<5 


and  to  the  world,  healing  all  strife,  reconciling  all  differences, 
subduing  all  animosities,  banding  men  together  in  the  mutual 
fellowship  and  the  common  tasks  of  humanity,  is  the  peace  of 
God,  accomplished  for  man  and  freely  offered.  God  proclaims 
his  peace  through  the  lips  and  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  God  is  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself.  He  ventures  all 
upon  the  gospel  of  his  grace.  Wars  of  aggression  will 
become  impossible  when  the  pride  of  man  is  humbled  before 
the  cross,  when  the  will  of  man  is  surrendered  to  the  will  of 
love  which  stretches  thence  its  appealing  arms. 

Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  men  love  their  neighbors  as 
themselves  and  become  rivals  only  in  deeds  of  mutual  helpful¬ 
ness.  The  gospel  of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  must  inspire 
all  education  in  the  knowledge  of  peace,  and  must  guide  all 
international  counsels  on  behalf  of  peace,  else  the  arguments 
will  be  wrongly  directed  and  the  emphasis  be  wrongly  laid. 
The  cure  of  war  is  as  simple  and  as  difficult  as  that.  “  God 
loves  me,”  so  runs  the  only  perfect  argument.  “  God  loves  me,” 
so  speaks  the  only  perfect  dynamic,  “  therefore  I  must  love  man 
as  he  has  done  with  the  same  sacrificial  spirit  as  that  which 
led  the  Son  of  God  to  die  upon  the  cross.”  When  there  is 
love,  there  will  be  peace.  Peace  is  not  a  manufactured  article  ; 
it  is  the  fruit  of  the  spirit. 

When  the  peace  of  God  takes  possession  of  a  man,  when  it 
becomes  the  passion  of  a  community,  does  it  take  no  higher 
form  than  national  disarmament  ?  Is  its  peculiar  blessing  no 
more  than  this,  that  it  enables  a  nation  to  make  more  money 
which  it  may  spend  on  churches  and  schools,  or  may  only  spend 
all  on  forms  of  self-indulgence  ?  There  might  be  a  peace  that 
was  only  shameful,  because  it  would  only  mean  that  man  cared 
too  little  for  justice  and  equity  to  fight  for  them.  There  might 
be  an  ignoble  security  which  men  employed  only  to  make  pro¬ 
visions  for  the  flesh,  to  satisfy  the  lusts  thereof.  There  might 
even  be  a  “virtuous  materialism,”  as  it  has  been  called,  in  which 
men  committed  no  crimes  and  aspired  to  no  virtues  and  reached 
to  no  heroisms  and  lived  in  and  for  the  world,  “  tame  in  earth’s 
paddock  as  her  prize.”  War  would  not  be  so  deadly  an  evil 
as  a  peace  which  meant  the  death  of  man’s  spirit. 

£**The  peace  of  God  is  far  removed  from  any  such  travesty. 
The  peace  of  God  shows  men  what  their  real  enemies  are  ;  it 
opens  to  their  view  the  battlefield  where  God  himself  is  the 
chief  combatant ;  it  girds  men  for  the  conflict  which  none  may 
shun  save  at  peril  of  their  lives.  When  the  battle-smoke  that 


97 


pours  from  rifle  and  cannon  has  drifted  from  the  field,  the  real 
foes  of  humanity  stand  revealed  ;  and  men  who  are  at  peace 
with  God  and  with  their  fellows  spring  to  arms  and  are  ready 
to  lay  down  their  lives  for  their  brethren. 

That  is  why  the  Bible  rings  with  martial  metaphors,  why  the 
Christian  is  depicted  as  a  soldier,  and  his  virtues  are  catalogued 
as  pieces  of  armor,  and  why  the  great  apostle  of  the  gospel  of 
peace  declared,  as  he  laid  down  his  weapons  and  made  ready  for 
the  award,  “I  have  fought  the  good  fight.” 

The  cure  for  war,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  the  most  stu¬ 
pendous  evil  of  history,  is  to  teach  man  what  to  fight  for.  A 
peace  society  should  so  appeal  to  men  and  should  so  educate 
them  that  it  might  as  well  be  called  “The  Society  of  Christian 
Warfare.”  In  history  we  have  known  a  “  Holy  Alliance,”  a 
league  of  the  tyrants  of  Europe  to  suppress  its  liberties.  Let 
the  Society  of  International  Peace  be  a  Holy  Alliance  to  defeat 
the  ambitions  of  despots,  to  confound  the  follies  of  demagogues, 
to  give  effect  to  the  demand  for  peace  which  is  the  natural  in¬ 
stinct  of  all  men  who  have  emerged  from  barbarism. 

Professor  Fitzpatrick,  in  the  course  of  his  address,  gave 
instances  in  which  historv  has  shown  that  war  has  sometimes 
seemed  necessary ;  for  example,  in  the  cause  of  civil  liberty, 
freedom  of  conscience,  the  protection  of  home  and  family,  the 
relief  of  the  oppressed.  But  he  wished  to  see  men  at  peace 
with  each  other  and  with  God  as  to  all  these  causes  in  order 
that  they  might  be  united  and  fight  unrighteousness  in  high 
places,  dishonesty  in  trade,  the  prostitution  of  justice  and  the 
devastating  power  of  immorality.  “These,”  he  said,  “are  the 
real  invaders,  the  real  destroyers  of  our  land.  The  guns  of  the 
Dreadnaught  will  not  reach  them.  They  are  out  of  range  of 
ought  but  moral  force,  —  the  coercion  of  public  will  obedient  to 
the  will  of  God.” 

Mr.  Edwin  Ginn  of  Boston  was  then  introduced.  He  spoke 
on  the  International  School  of  Peace,  of  which  he  is  the  founder. 
Mr.  Ginn,  among  other  things,  said  : 

THE  INTERNATIONAL  SCHOOL  OF  PEACE. 

Edwin  Ginn,  Boston,  Mass. 

The  advocates  of  peace  have  always  had  arrayed  against  them 
many  strong  forces.  Self-interest  is  a  tremendous  power  in 
this  world,  and  when  we  combat  that  things  seem  almost 


98 


hopeless.  We  must  try  in  some  way  to  secure  its  cooperation. 
The  continuance  of  the  present  military  system  means  con¬ 
tracts  amounting  annually  to  two  thousand  million  dollars  to  be 
secured  by  somebody.  This  military  system  means  also  the 
employment  of  five  million  men  regularly  and  twenty-five 
millions  a  part  of  the  time.  These  men  owe  to  this  system 
their  advancement  in  life.  Such  forces  as  these  are  almost 
invincible.  They  can  tax  the  capital  of  the  world  for  their 
revenue ;  they  can  advertise  to  an  unlimited  extent ;  their 
influence  upon  the  press  is  tremendous. 

Then  we  have  arrayed  against  us  the  accumulations  of  the 
whole  world.  The  natural  instincts  of  men  compel  them  to 
demand  protection  for  property,  whether  it  be  private  or  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  state.  But  we  must  show  them  the  protection  which 
now  exists  is  most  expensive  to  both  and  entirely  unnecessary. 
It  is  pretty  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  majority  of  nations 
do  not  wish  to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  others ;  that  they 
wish  only  to  be  protected  in  what  they  have ;  but  in  their 
eagerness  to  be  absolutely  sure  of  such  protection  they  are 
risking  everything  they  would  safeguard. 

In  the  separate  countries  this  problem  of  protection  has  been 
solved.  The  individual  is  compelled  to  apply  to  the  courts  for 
satisfaction  in  case  of  a  difference  with  his  neighbor.  The  next 
step  for  us  is  to  apply  this  principle  to  the  nations  and  compel 
them  to  submit  their  differences  to  the  Hague  Court.  But, 
men  ask,  can  this  be  done  ?  Is  there  any  likelihood  that  the 
nations  will  be  willing  always  to  arbitrate  when  disputes  arise  ? 
Perhaps  not,  unless  physical  force  is  back  of  their  demand,  a 
force  sufficient  to  compel  obedience.  But  this  force  can  be 
made  an  economic  one,  not  a  destructive  one.  It  is  not  neces¬ 
sary  that  the  whole  world  should  be  turned  into  a  camp.  The 
turbulent  and  the  lawless  constitute  but  a  small  portion  of  the 
population  of  the  nations.  What  a  blessing  to  mankind  if 
nine-tenths  of  all  the  money  that  is  now  spent  in  military 
preparations  for  the  defense  of  the  nations  could  be  directed 
into  the  proper  channels  for  the  upbuilding  of  the  human 
race  ! 

While  doing  everything  possible  for  any  temporary  relief,  I 
believe  that  education,  moral  and  intellectual,  is  the  real  and 
abiding  hope  of  the  future.  This  education  cannot  go  on  if 
the  funds  are  to  be  supplied  by  a  few  philanthropists.  We 
must  bring  home  to  the  people  of  this  world  the  duty  they  owe 
to  themselves  to  make  possible  the  education  of  the  masses  to 


99 


higher  ideals.  We  must  make  them  feel  that  it  is  their  work, 
and  not  somebody’s  else. 

For  years  I  have  been  at  work,  with  a  few  helpers,  on  this 
problem,  with  little  publicity,  preferring  to  keep  in  the  back¬ 
ground  ;  but  when  I  first  set  forth  my  plans  for  an  international 
school  of  peace  they  did  not  attract  very  much  attention.  It 
was  not  until  I  accompanied  these  plans  with  an  offer  of 
$50,000  a  year  and  a  substantial  foundation  at  my  death  that 
I  was  able  to  arouse  any  degree  of  interest.  Then  favorable 
comments  were  received  from  far  and  near.  Many  people  are 
fond  of  talking  and  expect  to  accomplish  great  results  thereby ; 
but  it  has  been  my  experience  that  the  man  who  couples  with 
his  plans  the  means  for  carrying  them  into  effect  is  the  one 
who  makes  things  move.  Others  will  at  once  take  an  interest 
in  a  cause  with  a  practical  purpose  in  view  if  it  has  a  financial 
backing. 

With  our  International  Library,  already  well  developed,  and 
our  pamphlet  service,  well  started,  I  think  I  may  assume  that 
most  of  you  are  acquainted.  And  I  may  add  that  this  depart¬ 
ment  is  a  source  of  considerable  expense,  as  many  more  books 
are  given  away  than  are  sold. 

The  Bureau  of  Information,  for  gathering  and  distributing 
daily  such  material  as  will  interest  the  press  of  the  world  in 
this  greatest  of  all  subjects,  must  have  at  its  command  from 
$10,000  to  $20,000  a  year.  It  ought  to  have  spent  upon  it 
$50,000.  It  should  have  a  most  effective  head,  with  several 
valuable  assistants,  men  capable  of  writing  strong  articles  for 
publication  in  the  daily  press  at  the  crucial  moment ;  of  answer¬ 
ing  attacks  adverse  to  peace,  and  of  selecting  just  the  right 
material  for  dissemination  at  all  times  and  places.  All  sorts  of 
special  publications  must  be  prepared  for  all  sorts  of  needs. 

It  might  be  necessary  to  have  a  Press  Bureau  distinct  from 
the  Bureau  of  Information,  although  the  two  can  perhaps  be 
united.  One  object  of  this  Press  Bureau  should  be  to  send  out 
travelers  to  communicate  with  the  editors  of  the  press  all  over 
the  world  to  interest  them  in  our  project  by  personal  conference. 

Another  important  feature  in  the  plan  of  the  School  is  the 
Bureau  of  Economics.  It  will  be  the  duty  of  this  department 
to  look  carefully  into  the  expense  of  wars,  past  and  present,  and 
collect  the  statistics  necessary  to  inform  the  public  of  the 
numerous  reasons  rooted  in  profit  and  greed  why  the  present 
military  system  maintains  its  hold  upon  the  nations.  I  am  con¬ 
vinced  that  personal  interests,  money-making  interests,  are  very 


IOO 


largely  responsible  for  keeping  up  these  tremendous  armaments 
and  for  the  manufacture  of  cannon  and  small  arms.  The  enor¬ 
mous  contracts  that  the  system  calls  for  are  a  powerful  insti¬ 
gator.  It  would  be  well  to  find  out  to  what  extent  money  is 
being  used  by  these  selfish  interests  in  promoting  military 
preparations,  and  what  they  have  to  do  with  the  numerous  arti¬ 
cles  sure  to  appear  regularly  just  before  these  battleship  appro¬ 
priations  are  voted  on  by  Congress.  I  would  like  to  see  all 
these  things  traced  to  their  sources.  The  aim  of  this  Bureau 
should  be  to  ferret  out  and  bring  to  light  all  the  influences  that 
are  at  work  to  keep  up  this  big  martial  array. 

In  carrying  forward  this  work  we  must  adopt  the  ways  and 
means  that  lead  to  success  in  any  undertaking.  The  great 
achievements  of  man  in  any  direction  have  been  the  result  of 
careful,  persistent  effort.  Large  gatherings  and  fine  speeches 
will  not  accomplish  the  desired  ends.  Take,  for  example,  the 
schools  in  our  land.  We  have  our  conventions,  when  large 
numbers  of  teachers  are  assembled  ;  but  how  far  would  the 
work  done  at  these  conventions  go  in  educating  our  children  if 
the  schoolhouse  and  the  teacher  were  banished  from  the  land  ? 
Yet  I  do  not  see  how  our  peace  societies  could  have  done 
much  more  than  they  have  with  the  limited  amount  of  money 
at  their  command. 

We  have  made  little  impression  upon  the  financial  world  ; 
we  have  made  comparatively  few  converts  among  business  men. 
The  financiers  largely  determine  war  and  peace,  but  they  are 
too  busy  to  attend  our  conventions  or  read  our  speeches.  We 
must  go  to  them  and  win  them  over,  one  by  one,  to  our  way  of 
thinking.  If  we  could  bring  to  the  support  of  the  cause  one 
thousand  of  the  ablest  financiers  of  the  land,  it  would  be  a  long 
step  towards  disarmament ;  and  it  is  the  business  men  that  I 
have  had  especially  in  mind  in  laying  out  the  work  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  School  of  Peace.  We  must  show  them  that  liberal  con¬ 
tributions  to  the  cause  of  peace  will,  we  feel  sure,  materially 
reduce  the  war  taxes  they  are  now  obliged  to  pay. 

Mr.  Ginn  was  followed  by  Edwin  D.  Mead,  who  has  been 
associated  with  the  School  of  Peace  from  the  outset.  “  We 
are  facing,”  said  Mr.  Mead,  “the  third  Hague  Conference. 
We  already  feel  it  impending.  At  farthest  it  is  only  five  years 
ahead  of  us  ;  and  the  creation  of  the  committee  to  lay  out  its 
program  is  only  three  years  ahead.  If  the  Conference  meets, 
as  it  should,  in  1914,  instead  of  1915,  the  determining  of  its 


roi 


program  is  only  two  years  ahead.  The  question,  therefore,  as 
to  our  present  problems  and  duties  with  reference  to  the  third 
Conference,  in  view  of  the  results  of  the  two  preceding  Con¬ 
ferences,  is  a  very  practical  question,  and  one  of  immediate 
concern. 

“  Where  do  we  stand  ?  What  were  the  results  of  the  first  two 
Conferences  ?  It  is  well  here  to  sum  them  up  as  we  ask  our¬ 
selves  what  they  demand  of  the  nations  facing  to-day  the  third 
Conference.” 

The  first  half  of  Mr.  Mead’s  address  was  a  presentation  of 
the  various  specific  achievements  of  the  two  Hague  Confer¬ 
ences.  He  continued  as  follows  : 

THE  RESULTS  OF  THE  TWO  HAGUE  CONFERENCES 
AND  THE  DEMANDS  UPON  THE  THIRD 

CONFERENCE* 

Edwin  D.  Mead,  Director  of  the  International  School 

of  Peace,  Boston. 

The  general  results  of  the  Hague  Conferences  upon  the  habit 
and  temper  of  the  world  have  been  even  more  revolutionary 
and  beneficent  than  the  specific  results  which  have  here  been 
noticed.  I  can  think  of  no  other  proof  of  the  world’s  political 
maturity  and  competence,  of  its  rationality  and  evolution  of 
good  manners,  half  so  great  as  the  decorum,  mutual  respect 
and  perfect  temper  which  marked  the  dealings  of  the  two  hundred 
and  fifty-six  representatives  of  the  forty-four  nations  in  the  last 
Hague  Conference,  from  beginning  to  end.  Think  of  it,  in  the 
light  of  history, —  representatives  of  every  race,  religion,  lan¬ 
guage,  tradition,  system  of  government  and  system  of  law,  con¬ 
ferring  upon  the  most  important  and  critical  questions  of  inter¬ 
national  relation,  with  the  widest  differences  of  opinion  and 
feeling,  with  all  their  various  prejudices,  with  all  possible  scope 
for  collision,  and  no  one  breach  of  self-restraint  or  courtesy, 
no  breach  of  respect  or  of  brotherhood,  on  the  part  of  any  mem¬ 
ber  of  that  illustrious  convention  during  the  whole  four  months  ! 
Why,  if  the  second  Hague  Conference  had  done  nothing  but 
simply  exhibit  to  the  world  that  spectacle,  it  would  have  marked 
an  epoch.  But  how  much  more  than  that  it  taught  the  nations  ! 
It  taught  them  that  from  now  on  legality  and  cooperation, 
mutual  and  deferential  conference,  instead  of  national  selfish¬ 
ness,  impulse  or  isolation,  must  rule  the  world,  that  the  new 


102 


era  of  these  things  has  come,  and  come  to  stay.  This  is  the 
supreme  result  of  the  Hague  Conferences.  Those  Conferences 
were  sessions  of  the  world’s  Constitutional  Convention.  “On 
the  sky’s  dome,  as  on  a  bell,”  their  action  “struck  the  world’s 
great  hour  ”  of  unity  and  organization,  pledging  the  family  of 
nations  at  once  a  legislature  and  a  judgment  seat,  and  trans¬ 
forming  the  world’s  peace  party  into  a  world  federation  league, 
instinct  and  electric  with  confidence  in  “  holier  triumphs  yet 
to  come  ”  : 

“  The  bridal  time  of  Law  and  Love, 

The  gladness  of  the  world’s  release. 

When,  war-sick,  at  the  feet  of  Peace, 

The  hawk  shall  nestle  with  the  dove  ! 

“  The  golden  age  of  Brotherhood 
Unknown  to  other  rivalries 
Than  of  the  mild  humanities 
And  gracious  interchange  of  good.” 

The  League  of  Peace,  for  which  Mr.  Carnegie  has  been 
pleading,  seems  actually  at  hand.  Even  Mr.  Roosevelt  seems 
coming  into  line.  Only  the  League  of  Peace,  to  be  a  true 
solvent  and  a  real  blessing,  must  be  coextensive  with  honest 
national  purpose  and  genuine  civilization. 

What  demands  do  the  great  results  of  the  Hague  Conferences 
make  upon  the  nations  ?  They  demand  that  we  shall  go  on 
unto  perfection.  The  rapid  recital  which  I  have  made  is  no 
more  history  than  program  and  commandment.  The  great 
evolution  of  international  organization  has  been  begun  upon 
right  lines,  and  the  demand  of  that  evolution  is  further  evolution 
upon  the  same  lines.  I  have  spoken  upon  the  work  of  the 
second  Hague  Conference  towards  the  establishment  of  an 
International  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice,  and  of  the  fact  that 
everything  now  necessary  to  bring  that  Court  into  existence 
and  operation  is  the  agreement  upon  the  appointment  of  judges 
by  two  or  three  nations.  Precisely  this,  as  you  all  know,  is 
what  Secretary  Knox  is  trying  to  bring  about  at  this  moment, 
and  he  has  just  informed  the  country  that  the  response  to  his 
effort  is  most  encouraging.  It  would  certainly  have  been  a 
satisfaction  if  all  nations,  or  a  majority  of  them,  could  have 
agreed  upon  some  form  of  appointing  the  judges  for  this  Court. 
They  did  not  agree,  and,  happily,  an  agreement  between  two  or 
three  of  them  was  all  that  was  absolutely  necessary  to  inaugu¬ 
rate  the  Court.  The  thought  of  so  extending  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  judges  of  the  International  Prize  Court  as  should  practi¬ 
cally  transform  that  into  a  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice  or  Supreme 


103 


Court  of  the  World  was  probably  a  fortunate  thought.  At  any 
rate,  it  offered  a  solution  of  a  difficult  problem,  and  the  first 
demand  upon  us  at  this  moment  is  to  back  up  that  effort  until 
it  succeeds.  I  believe  it  will  quickly  succeed,  and  when  the 
Court  is  once  established  I  am  quite  willing  to  trust  to  the 
various  forces  of  international  evolution  to  make  of  it  all  that  it 
ought  to  be.  I  am  proud  and  grateful  as  an  American  that  our 
own  nation  has  played  the  leading  part  in  the  birth  of  this  insti¬ 
tution.  Its  birth  is  in  obedience  to  the  principle  which  Secre¬ 
tary  Root  has  iterated  and  reiterated,  that  the  thing  chiefly 
desired  in  procedure  at  The  Hague  is  to  minimize  the  diplo¬ 
matic  side  of  things  and  magnify  the  really  judicial  side.  Sec¬ 
retary  Knox  took  up  this  matter  where  Secretary  Root  left  it  ; 
and  to  them,  and  to  Mr.  Choate  and  Dr.  Scott,  our  obligations 
and  the  world’s  in  this  matter  are  preeminent.  The  third 
Hague  Conference  will  undoubtedly  make  great  advances  as  to 
the  constitution  and  procedure  of  this  Court,  and  as  to  much 
touching  arbitration  altogether.  Consider  the  immense  signifi¬ 
cance  in  possible  contingencies  of  the  single  provision  by  the 
second  Conference  that  either  of  two  disputing  nations,  without 
agreement  with  its  opponent,  may  of  its  own  initiative  report 
its  willingness  to  arbitrate  to  the  International  Bureau,  which 
shall  then  inform  all  the  powers,  leaving  them  to  perform  their 
duty  in  the  matter.  I  look  for  further  provisions  of  this  char¬ 
acter,  and  it  is  for  us  to  demand  such  provisions,  until  interna¬ 
tional  law  touching  the  beginning  of  war  is  as  rational  and  as 
effective  as  Canadian  law  touching  the  beginning  of  strikes  and 
lockouts.  When  nations  once  realize  that  they  are  amenable 
to  public  opinion,  when  they  are  compelled  to  pay  a  decent 
respect  to  the  opinions  of  mankind  by  proper  publicity  and 
proper  delays,  the  end  of  war  will  be  in  sight,  for  no  man  living 
can  remember  a  war  whose  inauguration  would  have  been  able 
to  abide  the  world’s  critical  discussion.  Consider  simply 
England’s  recent  war  in  South  Africa  or  our  own  in  the 
Philippines.  Such  a  war  even  as  the  Franco-German  War  in 
1870  would  have  been  impossible  if  both  France  and  Prussia 
had  been  compelled  to  submit  to  the  world  full  statements  of 
the  grounds  of  their  proposed  conflict,  and  wait  a  proper  period 
for  the  world’s  review  and  judgment. 

The  second  Hague  Conference  recognized  unanimously  the 
principle  of  obligatory  arbitration  ;  and  it  may  well  be  that  the 
third  Conference  will  work  out  some  formula  for  a  general 
treaty  which,  while  much  broader  in  scope  than  the  treaty 


104 


proposed  at  the  second  Conference,  shall  still  command  universal 
assent.  Whether  so  or  not,  a  cardinal  demand  upon  us  all,  as 
we  face  the  third  Conference  and  the  establishment  of  the  new 
International  Court,  is  to  work  for  arbitration  treaties  of  broader 
scope,  unlimited  treaties,  providing  that  every  difference  what¬ 
ever  between  nations  not  settled  by  diplomatic  negotiation 
shall  be  referred  to  The  Hague.  The  reservation  from  arbi¬ 
tration  in  most  treaties  in  these  late  years  of  questions  of 
so-called  “honor”  and  “vital  interest”  is  a  mischievous  reser¬ 
vation.  National  integrity,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  not  a 
subject  for  arbitration  ;  but  there  is  no  possible  question  cov¬ 
ered  by  these  foolish  reservations  which  would  not  be  better 
arbitrated  than  fought  about, —  and  there  has  been  no  kind  of 
question  which  has  not  been  successfully  arbitrated.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  go  beyond  the  survey  of  our  own  arbitrations, 
involving  the  most  important  boundary  disputes  and  all  the 
momentous  questions  of  “honor”  and  “vital  interest”  in  the 
Alabama  case.  The  foolish  reservations  serve  only  as  pegs 
upon  which  the  apologists  for  big  armaments  can  hang  their 
pleas,  and  thus  perpetuate  suspicion  and  trouble.  President 
Taft  never  did  a  greater  service  than  when  in  New  York  a  few 
weeks  ago  he  condemned  the  reservation  from  arbitration  of 
so-called  questions  of  honor.  There  is  no  honor  so  great  be¬ 
tween  nations  or  between  men  as  that  of  referring  their  dis¬ 
putes  to  impartial  third  parties  rather  than  fight  about  them. 
As  concerns  ourselves,  it  chances  that  treaties  referring  every¬ 
thing  to  arbitration  without  reserve  were  unanimously  indorsed 
by  the  great  Arbitration  Conference  at  Washington  in  1904, 
under  the  presidency  of  Hon.  John  W.  Foster,  the  resolutions 
to  this  effect  having  been  drawn  by  a  committee  of  which  Hon. 
George  Gray  was  the  chairman.  It  accuses  us  that  we  have 
let  this  matter  drop.  Let  us  now  revive  it,  and  keep  agitating 
it  until  we  have  treaties  of  the  right  sort  referring  all  differ¬ 
ences  to  a  court  of  the  right  sort.  I  am  glad  to  report  in  this 
New  England  Congress  that  a  resolution  urging  action  to  this 
end  has  just  been  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
which  has  so  frequently  in  the  past  adopted  resolutions  pro¬ 
phetic  of  provisions  to  which  the  larger  world  has  come  later. 

Two  other  principles  were  indorsed  in  resolutions  passed  by 
the  Massachusetts  Legislature  at  its  present  session,  which 
should  be  regarded  as  demands  upon  the  attention  of  the  third 
Hague  Conference.  One  condemns  all  wars  of  conquest,  as 
Brazil  now  condemns  and  forbids  such  wars  in  her  constitution, 


io5 


and  as  the  recent  Berlin  treaty  between  the  nations  bordering 
on  the  North  Sea  condemns  them  by  implication.  This  Massa¬ 
chusetts  resolution,  urging  our  government  to  unite  with  other 
governments  in  action  upon  the  matter,  has  already  found  strong 
indorsement  in  many  other  States.  The  third  Hague  Confer¬ 
ence  should  write  this  prohibition  into  international  law.  It 
should  also  take  some  large  action  along  the  lines  of  our  other 
Massachusetts  resolution,  looking  to  the  positive  provision  by 
the  nations,  at  cost,  for  mutual  activities  promoting  good  under¬ 
standing  and  cooperation.  It  is  high  time  we  heard  more  of 
“peace  budgets,”  and  not  simply  of  “war  budgets.”  When 
the  nations  once  realize  that  it  is  cheaper  and  more  efficacious 
to  spend  money  in  preparing  for  peace  than  in  preparing  for 
war,  this  will  rapidly  become  at  once  a  safer  and  more  respect¬ 
able  world  ;  and  the  right  time  for  decisive  agitation  to  that 
end  is  the  time  between  now  and  the  third  Hague  Conference. 

The  two  most  trying  problems  that  the  third  Hague  Con¬ 
ference  will  confront  are  those  of  the  inviolability  of  ocean  com¬ 
merce  in  war  and  the  limitation  of  armaments.  Somehow  the 
Conference  must  deal  with  these  problems.  It  is  because  the 
man  in  the  street  believes  that  the  first  two  Conferences  shirked 
their  duty  concerning  the  latter  problem  that  he  has  called  those 
Conferences  failures  ;  for  to  the  common  people  the  one  great 
problem  is  the  awful  problem  of  the  monstrous  armaments  which 
impose  such  intolerable  burdens  upon  the  people  and  fill  the 
world  with  danger  and  alarm.  The  plain  man  pays  little  heed 
to  our  eloquence  about  arbitration  treaties  and  arbitration  courts 
so  long  as  the  governments  go  on  increasing  the  terrible  ma¬ 
chinery  of  war  vastly  faster  than  they  increase  the  machinery 
of  justice  ;  for  he  says  that,  if  they  obeyed  their  own  logic  and 
the  spirit  of  the  Hague  conventions,  to  which  they  have  made 
themselves  parties,  the  decrease  of  the  machinery  of  force 
should  keep  even  pace  with  the  increase  of  the  machinery  of 
law.  With  whatever  reservations,  the  common  people  are  pro¬ 
foundly  right  in  this  judgment ;  and  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the 
third  Hague  Conference  to  grapple  in  some  strong  and  serious 
way  with  this  anomalous  situation.  The  man  in  the  street, 
the  man  who  does  not  know  history,  was  too  impatient  in  his 
early  demands.  It  was  impossible  that  the  disarmament  of  the 
nations  should  come  before  the  Court  of  the  Nations.  The 
war  system  could  not  disappear  until  the  law  system  was  ready 
to  take  its  place  ;  and  the  nations  will  not  fully  commit  them¬ 
selves  to  the  law  system  until  by  sufficiently  long  and  successful 


io6 


operation  this  has  approved  itself.  The  actual  increase  of 
war  machinery,  however,  alongside  the  great  development  of 
law  machinery,  is  a  paradox  and  a  crime,  and  the  plain  people 
are  right  in  their  feeling  that  it  impeaches  the  good  faith  of 
the  nations.  This  question  is  now  a  great  moral  question. 
The  one  word  of  real  consequence  in  Mr.  Roosevelt’s  recent 
Nobel  address  at  Christiania  was  this:  “Granted  sincerity  of 
purpose,  the  great  powers  of  the  world  should  find  no  insur¬ 
mountable  difficulty  in  reaching  an  agreement  which  would  put 
an  end  to  the  present  costly  and  growing  extravagance  of  ex¬ 
penditure  on  naval  armaments.”  This  is  what  the  plain  people 
of  the  nations  have  long  seen  clearly  and  felt  deeply,  and  this 
is  the  ground  of  their  impatience.  They  have  been  in  advance 
of  most  of  the  statesmen,  and  they  distrust  the  sincerity  and 
serious  purpose  of  governments.  The  hour  has  struck  for  seri¬ 
ousness  and  resolution  and  action  in  this  matter.  It  is,  I  repeat, 
a  moral  question.  The  arguments  for  the  great  armaments, 
especially  for  the  great  navies,  which  are  now  vastly  more  a 
danger  than  a  defense,  are  not  respectable  arguments.  We 
need  not  bother  ourselves  here  about  other  people.  We  have 
only  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  pleas  and  apologies  for  our 
own  inordinate  navy  from  some  of  our  own  Congressmen  and 
other  officials.  It  would  surely  be  hard  to  conceive  of  anything 
worse  than  the  jingoism  and  hucksterism  of  the  recent  speech 
of  our  Secretary  of  the  Navy  at  Philadelphia,  urging  a  bigger 
navy  to  prevent  our  being  “trodden  upon”  by  other  nations, 
and  to  make  more  business  for  the  Steel  Trust ! 

The  recent  and  almost  chronic  strain  between  Great  Britain 
and  Germany,  insane  in  many  respects  as  it  is,  is  the  reductio 
ad  absurdum  of  the  foolish  argument  that  the  way  to  insure 
peace  is  to  create  such  monstrous  armaments  as  shall  make 
nations  afraid  to  attack  each  other.  Every  new  German  or 
British  Dreadnaught,  so  far  from  proving  a  new  bond  of  peace 
according  to  the  theory,  has  proved  a  new  occasion  of  dread 
and  danger.  The  Anglo-German  situation  is  also  a  conclusive 
argument  for  the  inviolability  of  ocean  commerce  in  war.  There 
is  no  remaining  usage  of  war  so  barbarous  as  that  which  violates 
this.  So  long  as  Germany’s  commerce  and  commercial  ambi¬ 
tion  grow  as  they  are  now  growing,  so  long  will  her  navy  grow 
commensurately,  until  menace  to  her  merchant  marine  is  re¬ 
moved  by  international  law.  This  point  touches  not  simply 
Germany,  but  every  commercial  nation.  Nothing  will  do  so 
much  to  reduce  the  navies  of  the  world  as  the  international 


io7 


decree  of  the  inviolability  of  ocean  commerce  in  war.  We  are 
glad  to  remember  that  this  has  always  been  the  American  posi¬ 
tion.  Germany  stood  for  it  with  us  at  the  last  Hague  Con¬ 
ference.  If  the  next  Conference  solves  this  problem,  it  will 
render  a  service  vastly  greater  than  the  second  Conference 
rendered  in  the  adoption  of  the  Porter-Drago  proposition. 

Touching  the  larger  question  of  the  limitation  of  armaments, 
the  demand  of  the  American  people  upon  the  third  Hague  Con¬ 
ference  should  be  the  same  demand  which  Secretary  Root 
formulated  for  us  upon  the  point  as  we  entered  the  second 
Conference — that  our  effort  in  this  direction  should  be  per¬ 
sistent,  and  that  this  persistence  should  continue  until  ultimate 
success  is  attained.  It  is  fortifying  to  recur,  in  closing,  to  Mr. 
Root,  because  there  has  not  been  in  all  the  world  in  this  time 
a  wiser  international  statesman ;  and  there  has  been  none 
who  has  emphasized  more  impressively  the  power  of  public 
opinion.  It  is  the  growing  international  sentiment  of  man¬ 
kind,  he  has  reminded  us,  which  will  be,  and  already  is,  the 
great  sanction  of  international  law  itself  ;  and  at  the  New  York 
Peace  Congress  of  three  years  ago  he  called  upon  all  such  bodies 
as  ours  to  do  their  utmost  for  the  creation  of  that  energetic 
moral  sentiment  which  is  at  at  once  the  highest  inspiration  and 
the  strongest  support  of  governments  in  their  dealings  with 
world  affairs.  It  is  with  the  creation  of  strong  and  enlightened 
public  opinion  that  men  and  women  like  ourselves  have  to  do. 
That  is  what  we  are  for.  That  is  what  this  Congress  is  for. 

As  we  approach  the  third  Hague  Conference,  let  us  under¬ 
stand  clearly  the  problems  which  the  second  Conference  left  to  it 
and  to  us.  Let  us  formulate  clearly  to  ourselves  the  things 
which  the  third  Conference  ought  to  do.  Let  us  remember 
that  two  years  before  that  Conference  meets  the  committee  will 
meet  to  determine  its  program,  and  that  therefore  there  is  no  time 
to  be  lost.  Let  us  insist  upon  such  an  organization  of  the  third 
Conference,  in  contrast  to  the  organization  of  the  first  two 
Conferences,  as  shall  make  it  indeed  a  free  and  independent  Con¬ 
ference.  For  my  own  part,  I  should  say,  let  us  insist  that  the 
Conference  meet  not  later  than  1914.  An  interval  of  seven 
years  between  these  Parliaments  of  Man  is,  as  our  critical  and 
crowded  history  now  makes  itself,  an  interval  quite  long  enough ; 
and  the  accident  of  a  year’s  waste  of  time  in  1906  should  not 
be  allowed  to  determine  the  interval  in  the  present  case.  The 
United  States  delegation,  in  the  spirit  of  Secretary  Root’s 
instructions,  suggested  to  the  second  Conference  the  month  of 


io8 


June,  1914,  as  the  date  of  the  meeting  of  the  third  Conference  ; 
and  that  is  the  proper  time  for  it.  But,  however  these  things 
are  settled,  let  the  peace  party  of  America  be  alive.  Let  it 
remember  that  William  Ladd  and  Elihu  Burritt,  half  a  century 
and  more  before  the  first  Hague  Conference,  stood  clearly  and 
persistently  for  every  cardinal  feature  of  the  Hague  program, 
and  be  inspired  by  those  sacred  memories  to  as  prophetic  ser¬ 
vice  to-day  as  theirs  of  yesterday.  Let  it  remember  that  the 
peace  movement,  as  your  great  Bushnell  here  in  Hartford  so 
impressively  pointed  out  in  his  prophetic  essay  on  “  The  Growth 
of  Law,”  is  simply  the  extension  of  law  beyond  the  confines  of 
the  nation,  the  largest  unit  yet  fully  organized,  to  the  family 
of  nations ;  and  that  our  own  federal  republic,  our  United 
States,  offers  in  its  own  beneficent  national  institutions  the 
most  impressive  and  potent  prototype  of  a  united  world.  This 
beneficent  federation,  this  eloquent  inheritance,  are  a  high  im¬ 
perative  and  holy  call.  Let  us  realize  America’s  great  duty 
and  great  power ;  and  let  us  so  exert  ourselves  in  the  years 
just  before  us  as  to  make  America’s  influence  in  the  third 
Hague  Conference  worthy  of  her  own  great  traditions  and  a 
blessing  to  mankind. 

Rev.  Walter  Walsh  of  Dundee,  Scotland,  author  of  “The 
Moral  Damage  of  War,”  vigorous  opponent  of  militarism,  now 
almost  as  familiar  to  American  peace  audiences  as  to  those  of 
Great  Britain,  was  the  last  speaker.  He  took  for  his  subject 
Norman  Angell’s  book,  “  Europe’s  Optical  Illusion,”  the  argu¬ 
ment  of  which  he  summarized  as  follows  : 


u  EUROPE'S  OPTICAL  ILLUSION/' 

Rev.  Walter  Walsh,  Gilfillan  Memorial  Church,  Dun¬ 
dee,  Scotland. 

That  masterly  analyst,  John  Ruskin,  in  “  Unto  This  Last,” 
declared  business  to  be  essentially  restless,  and  probably  con¬ 
tentious,  having  a  raven-like  mind  as  to  the  carrion  food.  The 
great  English  economist,  Richard  Cobden,  in  his  pamphlet 
“  England,”  asserted  that  the  defense  of  her  commerce  was  the 
argument  which  had  decided  Great  Britain  to  undertake  almost 
every  war  in  which  she  had  ever  been  involved. 

An  English  speculator,  Cecil  Rhodes,  affirmed  that  modern 
wars  were  not  now  waged  for  the  amusement  of  royal  families, 
but  for  practical  business  ;  while  a  British  Chancellor  of  the 


109 


Exchequer  bluntly  confessed  that  the  real  object  of  naval  and 
military  expenditure  was  to  push  and  promote  British  trade 
throughout  the  world.  The  argument,  “  Be  my  subject  or  I 
will  kill  you,”  has  changed  to  “  Be  my  customer  or  I  will  kill 
you.”  Thus  have  Napoleon’s  nation  of  shopkeepers  blossomed 
out  into  a  nation  of  soldiers.  The  air  is  full  of  rumors  of  com¬ 
mercial  war  between  Great  Britain  and  Germany  —  war  for  the 
sake  of  trade  —  justifying  the  jibe  of  Robert  Browning  : 

“  Once  you  warred 
For  liberty  against  the  world,  and  won  : 

There  was  the  glory.  Now  you  fain  would  war 
Because  the  neighbor  prospers  overmuch.” 

To  what  extent  the  wealth  of  nations  was  ever  on  the  striking 
of  a  just  balance  promoted  by  war  is  an  inquiry  I  will  not  on 
this  occasion  pursue.  The  proposition  we  are  now  called  upon 
to  study  is,  that  the  course  of  political  and  commercial  evolution 
has  rendered  war  for  the  sake  of  trade  useless  and  ineffective 
even  for  the  very  object  it  set  out  to  secure  ;  that  the  conditions 
of  modern  commerce  render  it  impossible  for  one  nation  to  cap¬ 
ture  the  commerce  of  another ;  that  a  victorious  nation  must 
endure  all  the  cost  and  impoverishment  of  war,  without  that 
compensating  enrichment  which  formerly  was  supposed  to 
accrue  to  the  victor.  This  is  the  astounding  proposition  stated 
and  defended  in  a  book  recently  published,  entitled  “  Europe’s 
Optical  Illusion,”  which  ought  without  delay  to  find  its  way 
into  every  chamber  of  commerce  and  every  merchant’s  office  in 
the  world. 

The  commercial  and  political  outlook  of  Europe  will  undergo 
a  transformation  so  soon  as  it  is  understood  that  the  possession 
of  military  power  does  not  insure  industrial  and  commercial 
success ;  that  such  success  is  independent  of  such  power, 
emerging  from  quite  other  conditions  ;  and  that  consequently 
neither  Germany  nor  Great  Britain  could  expect  to  reap  finan¬ 
cial  profit  from  even  victorious  war. 

It  is  understood  that  the  author  of  this  challenging  work  is 
himself  a  journalist,  and  we  may  therefore  without  offense 
quote  his  opinion  of  journalists  as  well  as  statesmen  who  emit 
a  superstitious  jargon  as  obsolete  as  expositions  of  astrology 
and  witchcraft  belated  far  behind  the  march  of  events,  and 
that  the  time  has  come  to  challenge  their  wornout  axiom,  that 
military  conquest  increases  the  power  and  prosperity  of  the 
conqueror  at  the  cost  of  the  vanquished,  and  to  demonstrate,  on 
the  contrary,  that  military  force  is  an  economic  futility.  That 


I  IO 


the  industrial  wealth  of  a  vanquished  people  passes  over  to  the 
victor  is  a  grotesque  fallacy,  comparable  to  the  theory  of  canni¬ 
bal  warriors,  that  the  strength  and  courage  of  the  fallen  foe 
passed  into  the  triumphant  savage  who  ate  him. 

In  early  times,  when  wealth  consisted  of  gold  and  silver  cups, 
jewels  and  slaves,  it  was  possible  for  a  conqueror  to  carry  off 
booty ;  but  now  that  wealth  consists  for  the  most  part  of  for¬ 
eign  investments  and  paper  securities,  marauding  excursions, 
even  on  the  grand  national  scale,  are  as  profitless  as  would  be 
the  raids  of  a  Dick  Turpin  upon  travelers  carrying  check  books. 
By  post,  telegraph,  telephone,  the  banks  of  London,  Paris, 
Berlin  and  New  York  are  made  financially  interdependent  in 
the  same  way  as  those  of  Edinburgh  and  Birmingham  or  Boston 
and  Philadelphia;  so  that,  if  Mr.  Frederick  Harrison’s  night¬ 
mare  were  to  be  .  realized  by  Germany’s  looting  the  bank  of 
England,  Berlin  would  be  unable  to  collect  her  debts  in  London, 
and  would  be  impoverished  to  the  extent  of  those  debts.  She 
would  find  she  had  destroyed  not  a  rival,  but  a  customer.  She 
would  have  plunged  herself  into  financial  chaos,  with  resulting 
commercial  bankruptcy  and  industrial  dislocation.  It  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  exact  tribute  or  indemnity  without  producing  similar 
results  ;  impossible  is  it  also  to  capture  the  rival’s  external  or 
carrying  trade.  Annexation  of  territory,  even  when  politically 
possible,  is  discovered  to  be  financially  unprofitable.  In  every 
case  the  boomerang  flies  back  upon  the  thrower.  It  is  improb¬ 
able  that  the  dream  of  Pan-Germanism  fully  realized  would 
make  richer  a  single  German  creature.  That  great  Scotch 
economist,  Adam  Smith,  was  the  first  to  point  out  that  the 
states  of  Europe  might  naturally  form  a  set  of  closely  related 
fiscal  units,  but  he  could  not  foresee  that  financial  interdepen¬ 
dence  and  financial  solidarity  which  are  increasing  at  the  expense 
of  commercial  and  industrial  competition,  which  is  making  war 
too  risky,  and  which  was  probably  the  moving  cause  of  the 
Algeciras  understanding,  and  prevented  hostilities  between 
Germany  and  France  over  the  Morocco  affair. 

It  is  now  abundantly  evident  that  trade  does  not  follow  the  flag. 
But  more  ;  neither  does  tariff  bargaining  follow  the  big  navy  or 
the  conscript  army.  Canadian  orders  goto  France,  Germany,  Bel¬ 
gium  more  than  to  Great  Britain.  Unarmed  Switzerland  wages 
successful  tariff  war  against  the  German  nation  in  arms.  The 
small  European  states  have  larger  per  capita  trade  than  their 
militarized  neighbors.  If  we  take  securities  as  the  test,  we 
find  that  the  investments  of  unprotected  Holland  and  Sweden 


1 1 1 


are  ten  per  cent,  to  twenty  per  cent,  safer  than  those  of  the 
greatest  powers.  The  financier  finds  investments  safer  in  the 
unprotected  countries.  What  now  becomes  of  the  foolish  talk 
about  our  vast  military  and  naval  expenditures  being  a  form  of 
“  insurance  ”  ?  It  now  appears  that  the  less  military  protection 
a  country  has,  the  safer  are  its  securities,  and  that,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  the  more  be  its  bayonets,  ironclads  and  warriors,  the 
shakier  become  its  invested  securities.  Britain’s  latest  annex¬ 
ation  shall  be  our  crowning  proof.  At  a  cost  of  more  than 
two  hundred  and  fifty  million  pounds  Great  Britain  annexed 
the  territory  now  known  as  the  United  States  of  South  Africa, 
with  the  only  result  that  she  has  hung  another  millstone  about 
her  neck  and  is  sinking  into  the  sea  of  revolution.  So  power¬ 
less  have  her  military  triumphs  left  her  in  the  fields  of  indus¬ 
trialism  and  politics,  that  she  has  grasped  not  one  of  these 
material  gains  traditionally  supposed  to  be  the  portion  of  a 
conqueror,  and  has  consented  to  distasteful  terms  of  South 
African  independence  dictated  in  London  by  the  very  Boer 
generals  who  a  few  years  ago  were  opposing  her  on  the  field  of 
battle. 

From  this  masterly  argument  some  deductions  may  be 
made,  such  as  that  certain  lines  of  trade,  holders  of  bonds  or 
capitalistic  syndicates  stand  to  gain  by  particular  wars,  spite  of 
the  general  impoverishment  thus  created  ;  and  that  these  are 
the  very  powers  that  control  newspapers,  dominate  politicians, 
and  are  frequently  able  to  persuade  a  people  that  a  particular 
war  will  be  to  the  general  advantage.  Further,  though  it  is  a 
gain  to  have  the  self-interested  motives  cleverly  exploited  in 
the  interest  of  peace,  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the 
prudential  motives  are  the  feeblest,  and  have  never  by  them¬ 
selves  produced  great  world  movements.  Hence  the  reasoning 
of  “  Europe’s  Optical  Illusion  ”  leaves  one  enormous  breach  in 
the  dyke  which  holds  back  the  red  tides  of  human  slaughter. 
It  leaves  untouched  the  sentimental  motive,  namely,  national 
vanity,  honor,  prestige,  pride,  ambition,  race-prejudice,  desire 
for  mastery,  and  what  Mr.  Spencer  Wilkinson,  the  author  of 
“  Britain  at  Bay,”  calls  the  “leadership  of  the  human  race.” 

Mr.  Walsh  from  this  point  on  discussed  at  length,  and  with 
his  usual  moral  ardor,  these  various  motives. 

Continuing  with  reference  to  commerce  and  war,  he  said  : 

International  commerce  is  evolving  an  international  con¬ 
science.  Humanity  has  but  one  interest,  because  it  has  but 


I  12 


one  soul.  The  fraternal  spirit  in  the  exchange  of  commodities 
is  driving  back  the  barbarous  spirit  in  exchange  of  blows.  The 
destroying  demon,  the  soldier,  is  giving  place  to  the  ministering 
angel,  the  merchant. 

Your  merchant  represents  a  high  type  of  service,  of  min¬ 
istry  ;  he  stands  for  production,  distribution,  exchange  of  arts, 
comforts,  utilities  of  life  ;  he  represents  agriculture,  the  fer¬ 
tilizing  and  adornment  of  the  earth  ;  by  him  the  lone  sea  is 
populous  with  ships  carrying  wool  and  corn,  timber  and  spices, 
travelers,  immigrants  and  missionaries,  pictures  and  books ; 
thoughts,  ideas,  religions,  gospels,  civilizations  by  him  pass  to 
and  fro  redeeming  the  earth  into  an  Eden  for  man,  and  man 
into  an  Eden  dweller  for  the  earth. 

Commercial  internationalism  is  at  last  closing  the  Pandora’s 
box  of  plagues  and  curses  which  have  afflicted  the  peoples  of 
the  earth,  and  is  opening  a  cornucopia  of  fruits,  flowers,  prod¬ 
ucts,  all  of  love’s  labor,  which  therefore  is  not  love’s  labor  lost  ; 
so  that  presently  shall  be  realized  the  vision  of  the  millennial 
poet,  who  sang  that  the  wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  shall 
be  glad  for  them,  and  the  desert  shall  rejoice  and  blossom  as 
the  rose. 


Center  Church,  Wednesday  Afternoon,  May  it,  1910* 

Judge  Robert  F.  Raymond,  Boston,  Presiding. 

The  last  afternoon  of  the  Congress  was  divided  among  three 
leading  interests.  These  were  the  unfinished  business  of  the 
Congress,  including  the  passing  of  resolutions,  a  teacher’s 
meeting,  and  the  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Peace 
Society. 

The  Committee  on  Resolutions  consisted  of  Dr.  Flavel  S. 
Luther,  chairman ;  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Secretary  of  the 
American  Peace  Society ;  Arthur  Deerin  Call,  President  of 
the  Connecticut  Peace  Society ;  Edwin  D.  Mead,  Director  of 
the  International  School  of  Peace  ;  Bradford  P.  Raymond, 
President  of  Wesleyan  University  ;  Rev.  Dr.  Rockwell  Har¬ 
mon  Potter  of  Hartford ;  Rt.  Rev.  Chauncey  B.  Brewster, 
Bishop  of  Connecticut ;  George  H.  Utter,  ex-Governor  of 
Rhode  Island  ;  John  M.  Thomas,  President  of  Middlebury  Col¬ 
lege,  Vermont. 


1 1 3 

It  reported  the  following  platform  of  resolutions,  which  was 
unanimously  adopted  : 

PLATFORM  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  PEACE  CONGRESS. 

The  New  England  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress,  meeting  May  8  to  1 1,  1910, 
in  Hartford  and  New  Britain,  Conn.,  the  old  homes  of  Horace  Bushnell  and  Elihu 
Burritt,  and  of  a  generation  illustrious  in  the  early  history  of  the  peace  movement 
in  America,  reverently  records  its  profound  obligations  to  the  great  leaders  of  the 
past  and  its  appreciation  of  their  clear  and  prophetic  grasp  of  the  principles  upon 
which  the  movement  for  international  justice  and  world  organization  advances 
with  such  breadth  and  power  to-day.  It  is  in  the  pioneering  international  work 
of  men  like  these,  men  like  Worcester  and  Channing  and  Ladd  and  Sumner,  that 
New  England  has  made  one  of  her  noblest  contributions  to  mankind.  In  his 
strong  and  persistent  demands,  in  the  great  international  peace  congresses  sixty 
years  ago,  for  an  official  congress  of  nations  to  define  and  develop  international 
law  and  create  an  international  court  to  interpret  and  apply  it,  Burritt  formulated 
the  cardinal  features  of  the  Hague  programs  of  our  time.  In  his  definition  of 
the  peace  movement  as  the  growth  of  law,  the  extension  to  the  family  of  nations 
of  those  institutions  which  have  secured  unity  and  order  to  individual  states  and 
national  federations,  Bushnell  anticipated  the  central  and  controlling  purpose  of 
the  world’s  present  peace  party. 

The  most  signal  and  impressive  fact  in  the  world’s  life  at  this  hour  is  the  rapid 
development  of  a  world  constitution  to  meet  the  imperative  needs  of  a  new  time. 
In  the  Hague  Conferences  we  see  the  beginnings  of  an  international  legislature. 
In  the  Hague  Arbitration  Tribunal,  the  International  Prize  Court  and  the  Court 
of  Arbitral  Justice,  we  see  a  world  judiciary.  In  the  Universal  Postal  Union, 
the  International  Institute  of  Agriculture  and  other  bureaus,  we  see  the  evolution 
of  the  world’s  executive  machinery. 

As  we  approach  the  third  Hague  Conference,  we  call  upon  the  peace  party 
and  the  patriotic  citizenship  of  America  for  renewed  and  more  definite  endeavor 
in  behalf  of  this  inspiring  progress,  and  express  our  high  and  grateful  appreciation 
of  what  our  own  statesmen  have  done  in  its  behalf.  Recognizing  the  fact  that 
the  system  of  war  can  only  be  supplanted  by  a  perfected  system  of  law,  we  call 
especially  for  earnest  support  of  the  efforts  of  Secretary  Knox  to  secure  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice.  We  call  for  such  broadening  of  the 
scope  of  all  treaties  of  arbitration  as  shall  provide  for  reference  to  The  Hague  of  all 
differences  whatever  not  settled  by  diplomacy,  and  express  our  sense  of  the  great 
service  rendered  by  President  Taft  in  his  recent  condemnation  of  the  mischievous 
reservation  from  arbitration,  in  most  treaties,  of  so-called  questions  of  honor. 

The  clear  logic  of  the  Hague  conventions  prescribes  to  the  nations  parties  to 
them  the  steady  decrease  of  the  machinery  of  war  corresponding  to  the  steady 
and  now  so  great  increase  of  the  machinery  of  international  justice.  T  he  present 
appalling  rivalry  in  the  navies  of  the  nations,  with  the  intoleiable  burdens  of  tax¬ 
ation  which  they  impose,  demands,  as  the  last  Hague  Conference  so  solemnly 
reminded  us,  the  urgent  attention  of  the  nations.  We  register  our  gratitude  to 
Mr.  Roosevelt  for  his  recent  conspicuous  declaration  that  with  sincerity  of  purpose 
the  great  powers  could  surely  reach  some  agreement  which  would  put  an  end  to 
the  present  extiavagance  in  naval  armaments  ;  and  with  equal  gratitude  we  recall 
Mr.  Root’s  strong  demand  upon  the  eve  of  the  second  Hague  Conference  that 
we  should  persist  in  earnest  effort  for  the  limitation  of  armaments  until  the  effort 
succeeds.  It  is  for  the  effective  dealing  with  this  urgent  demand  by  the  third 
Hague  Conference  that  the  world  waits. 

Recalling  the  fact  that  it  was  to  the  action  of  the  Interparliamentary  Union 
at  its  meeting  in  the  United  States  in  I904that  the  initiative  to  the  second  Hague 
Conference  was  due,  we  earnestly  indorse  the  proposition  made  by  Hon.  Richard 
Bartholdt,  chairman  of  the  American  Group  of  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  in 
his  resolutions  recently  submitted  to  Congress,  that  our  government  cieate  a 
commission  of  the  highest  character  to  consider  the  most  important  means  of 


advancing  the  cooperation  of  the  nations  toward  international  organization,  in 
order  that  our  recommendations  to  the  nations  and  to  the  third  Hague  Confer¬ 
ence  may  be  well  considered  and  far-reaching. 

We  express  our  deep  sympathy  with  the  people  of  Great  Britain  in  the  great 
loss  sustained  by  them  and  by  the  world  in  the  death  of  King  Edward  VII.  His 
wise  and  beneficent  reign  has  won  the  honor  of  mankind  ;  but  its  greatest  glory 
has  been  in  that  patient  and  fruitful  policy  of  international  friendship  which  has 
justly  earned  for  him  as  his  proudest  title  that  of  Edward  the  Peacemaker. 

Recognizing  in  public  education  and  enlightenment  the  permanent  guarantee 
of  peace  and  justice,  we  express  our  deep  satisfaction  in  the  strong  growth  in  this 
time  of  movements  for  the  education  of  our  people,  and  especially  our  youth,  in 
the  principles  of  our  commanding  cause.  We  greet  with  gratitude  and  high  hope 
the  founding  of  the  International  School  of  Peace,  the  American  School  Peace 
League,  the  Intercollegiate  Peace  Association  and  the  Cosmopolitan  Clubs,  and 
the  larger  devotion  to  the  cause  on  the  part  of  women’s  clubs  and  business  and 
workingmen’s  organizations.  To  all  of  these,  as  ever  to  the  church,  the  press,  the 
public  library  and  every  agency  for  the  creation  of  public  opinion,  we  appeal  foi 
constant  and  earnest  cooperation. 

The  Congress  also  passed  the  following  resolution  on  motion 
of  Mr.  Mead  : 

Resolved:  That  this  Congress  earnestly  endorses  the  resolution  recently  intro¬ 
duced  in  Congress  by  Senator  Lodge  in  behalf  of  the  careful  preparation  by  the 
Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  and  the  National  Bureau  of  Statistics, 
of  statistics  covering  the  cost  and  damage  of  wars  in  this  and  other  countries 
since  1776. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Trueblood,  the  Congress  passed  the  follow¬ 
ing  resolution  in  regard  to  Peace  Sunday  : 

Resolved:  That  the  New  England  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress  expresses 
its  hearty  approval  of  the  action  of  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches,  taken  at 
Philadelphia  in  1908.  in  recommending  to  the  churches  in  the  United  States  the 
observance  of  the  third  Sunday  in  December  as  Peace  Sunday,  and  this  Congress 
hopes  that  the  churches  throughout  New  England  will  observe  the  day  as  has 
been  recommended. 

It  was  voted  to  send  a  cablegram  of  sympathy  to  the  Queen 
Dowager  of  Great  Britain,  prepared  and  signed  by  Dean  Henry 
Wade  Rogers  as  president  of  the  Congress  and  Rev.  W.  Rod¬ 
ney  Roundy  as  secretary.  The  telegram  read  as  follows  : 

“New  England  Peace  Congress  in  session,  in  common  with  friends  of  interna¬ 
tional  peace  throughout  the  world,  deplores  the  death  of  Edward  VII,  Peace 
maker,  and  expresses  warmest  sympathy  with  you  personally.” 

President  Rogers  was  also  instructed  to  send  a  telegram  of 
appreciation  to  Hon.  Robert  Treat  Paine,  President  of  the 
American  Peace  Society,  Boston.  This  message  read  : 

“  New  England  Peace  Congress,  in  session  at  Hartford,  sends  cordial  greetings 
and  sympathies  and  expression  of  high  appreciation  of  your  long  and  fruitful 
service  to  the  cause  of  international  amity  and  peace.” 

A  letter  of  cordial  sympathy  was  read  from  Governor  Eben 
S.  Draper  of  Massachusetts.  Secretary  of  War  Hon.  Jacob  M. 
Dickinson  wrote  the  Congress  expressing  his  belief  that,  in 


spite  of  the  great  armaments  which  now  oppress  the  nations 
with  heavy  expenses,  the  cause  of  arbitration  and  peaceful 
settlements  is  steadily  gaining  ground. 

At  this  point  Judge  Robert  F.  Raymond  of  the  Massachu¬ 
setts  Superior  Court  succeeded  Dean  Rogers  as  president  of 
this  meeting  of  the  Congress.  On  taking  the  chair  he  made 
some  instructive  and  hopeful  remarks  on  the  progress  of  equity 
in  the  dealings  of  men  and  nations  with  each  other. 

Judge  Raymond  introduced  Hon.  Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  ex-Chief 
Justice  of  Connecticut,  who  read  a  paper  on  “International 
Law  as  a  Factor  in  the  Establishment  of  Peace.”  This  paper 
follows  : 


INTERNATIONAL  LAW  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  THE 
ESTABLISHMENT  OF  PEACE. 

Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  LL.D.,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Many  things  in  this  day  make  for  peace  between  nations. 
Of  one  of  these  I  have  been  asked  to  speak, — international 
law. 

In  its  early  beginnings  international  law  was  mainly  con¬ 
cerned  with  what  pertained  to  war  and  its  consequences. 
International  intercourse  in  time  of  peace  was  infrequent. 
There  were  no  permanent  legations  maintained  at  the  various 
capitals  until  the  seventeenth  century.  The  minister  from  one 
state  to  another  was  a  great  officer,  sent  with  a  special  com¬ 
mission  and  authority  to  transact  some  special  business,  and 
then  to  return  to  his  own  country.  He  was  — and  the  designa¬ 
tion  of  earlier  days  still  lingers  in  use  —  an  envoy  extraordi¬ 
nary  and  minister  plenipotentiary. 

The  establishment  of  permanent  legations  conduced  to  the 
formulation  in  terms  of  certain  general  usages  as  to  the  man¬ 
ner  of  conducting  diplomatic  intercourse  and  regulating 
international  relations  in  time  of  peace.  Especially  did  it  tend 
to  build  up  a  law  with  respect  to  claims  against  government 
by  citizens  of  foreign  governments,  and  to  controversies 
between  the  subjects  of  different  governments,  in  which  justice 
might  be  sought  through  actions  brought  in  court. 

From  this  time  on  international  law  became  divided  into  two 
parts,  sometimes  clearly  and  sometimes  vaguely ;  one  named 
Public  International  Law  and  the  other  Private  International 
Law. 


Private  International  Law  has  to  do  with  what  interests  every¬ 
body,  at  all  times  and  all  places.  It  settles  the  rights  of  for¬ 
eigners  and  our  duties  to  them  ;  the  rights  growing  out  of 
foreign  transactions  ;  things  which  concern  men’s  pockets  ;  the 
affairs  of  every  day,  in  the  normal  condition  of  foreign  rela¬ 
tions,  that  is,  peace.  It  is  mainly  a  law  for  peace  and  of  peace. 
Originally,  when  it  began  to  take  form,  it  was  little  but  the 
expression  of  the  opinion  of  particular  courts  or  jurists  as  to 
what  system  of  law  should  be  the  one  to  which  to  resort,  in 
case  of  doubt,  for  determining  a  question  involving  private 
rights  of  foreigners  or  private  rights  growing  out  of  foreign 
transactions. 

Suppose,  for  instance,  that  an  American,  traveling  abroad, 
makes  a  will  in  Paris.  Is  its  validity  to  be  determined  by  ask- . 
ing  whether  it  conforms  to  French  law  or  to  American  law  ? 
An  Italian  comes  over  here,  lays  up  $1000  in  a  few  years,  and 
dies,  leaving  no  will.  Is  his  estate  to  be  settled  according  to 
Italian  law  or  American  law  ?  Private  International  Law  must 
answer  and  does  answer  these  questions. 

You  will  observe  that  its  office  is  to  choose  between  the  laws 
of  different  sovereigns  which  to  apply  to  a  particular  trans¬ 
action.  The  test  naturally  is  :  Which  is  it  the  juster  to  apply  ? 
Justice  is  the  criterion.  It  is  not  important  which  of  the  two 
countries  is  the  more  powerful.  It  is  seldom  material  which 
of  the  systems  of  law  is  the  better  one.  All  nations  are  equal 
in  sovereignty,  and  it  is  for  each  to  regulate  as  it  pleases  the 
legal  relations  of  its  subjects  to  each  other,  and  to  a  large 
extent  the  acts  and  interests  of  foreigners  who  choose  to  enter 
its  territory. 

But  no  nation  can  be  fully  a  law  unto  itself  in  regard  to  its 
treatment  of  matters  concerning  international  relations.  If  it 
deals  harshly  with  foreigners,  their  country  will  complain. 
Readers  of  Carlyle’s  “Frederick  the  Great”  will  not  forget 
what  was  wrought  by  the  cry  of  “Jenkins’  Ear.” 

During  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  Private  International 
Law  has  begun  to  build  on  new  foundations.  In  1888  and  1889 
a  congress  of  most  of  the  Central  American  and  South  Amer¬ 
ican  powers  was  held  at  Montevideo,  especially  convened  to 
agree  on  some  general  and,  if  possible,  continental  system  of 
that  branch  of  jurisprudence.  The  only  absentees  were  Col¬ 
ombia,  Ecuador  and  Venezuela.  Eight  treaties  or  “conven¬ 
tions  ”  were  framed  on  as  many  different  subjects,  and  all 
together  constitute  what  is  almost  a  code  of  this  branch  of 


international  law.  All  nations  were  invited  to  become  parties 
to  these  conventions  ;  and  Spain,  in  1893,  signified  its  approval 
by  the  crown,  though,  for  want  of  subsequent  ratification  by  the 
legislative  department,  this  overture  finally  came  to  nothing. 
All  the  conventions  of  Montevideo  have  been  approved  by 
parliamentary  action  in  Uruguay,  Peru,  Paraguay,  Argentina, 
Ecuador  and  Bolivia,  and  several  of  them  have  received  like 
sanction  by  the  remaining  powers. 

While  South  America  was  thus  occupied  in  devising  a  uniform 
system  of  Private  International  Law,  Europe  followed  her  exam¬ 
ple.  Everybody  is  aware  of  the  two  Hague  Conferences  of  1899 
and  1907  for  the  advancement  of  Public  International  Law. 
Many  may  not  know  that  four  other  Conferences  have  been 
held  there,  in  1893,  1894,  1900  and  1904,  for  the  advancement 
of  Private  International  Law.  The  powers  represented  were 
Holland,  Germany,  Austria,  Hungary,  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Spain,  France,  Italy,  Luxemburg,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Russia, 
Switzerland,  Sweden  and  Norway.  No  English-speaking  country 
took  part  in  them.  No  representation  from  Asia  or  Africa  was 
invited  ;  but  Japan  appeared  at  the  last  Conference,  on  her  own 
motion,  and  was  cordially  welcomed. 

By  these  four  Hague  Conferences  conventions  have  been 
framed  on  the  celebration  and  effects  of  marriage,  divorce, 
guardianship,  successions  to  the  estates  of  deceased  persons, 
bankruptcy  and  civil  procedure  in  courts.  Each  was  to  run 
for  five  years.  Several  have  been  fully  ratified  and  are  now 
in  effect  between  most  of  the  powers  of  Continental  Europe. 
That  on  civil  procedure  in  cases  of  an  international  character 
went  into  operation  in  1899  between  all  Europe.  It  was  re¬ 
newed  for  five  years  under  one  of  its  own  self-executing  provi¬ 
sions  in  1904,  and  has  received  certain  additions  by  the  action 
of  the  last  of  the  conferences,  ratified  by  every  power. 

I  have  given  so  much  time  to  the  statement  of  these  facts 
because  they  show  so  convincingly  how,  on  both  the  great 
continents,  international  law  is  becoming  settled  by  voluntary 
agreements  on  the  part  of  the  leading  powers,  and  settled  on 
those  very  points  which,  affecting  as  they  do  personal  and 
pecuniary  interests,  are  a  natural  cause,  if  unsettled  or  un¬ 
fairly  settled,  of  international  irritation  and  unfriendliness. 

In  i860,  when  President  Woolsey  of  Yale  published  his 
treatise  on  “  International  Law,”  he  defined  it  as  being  “the 
aggregate  of  the  rules  which  Christian  states  acknowledge  as 
obligatory  in  their  relations  to  each  other  and  to  each  others’ 


1 1 8 


subjects,”  adding  that  it  did  not  cover  the  law  governing  Chris¬ 
tian  states  in  “  their  intercourse  with  savage  or  half-civilized 
tribes  or  even  with  nations  on  a  higher  level  but  lying  outside 
of  their  forms  of  civilization.” 

No  publicist  would  now  draw  a  line  between  Christian  and 
non-Christian  nations.  Four  Asiatic  non-Christian  nations 
besides  Turkey  attended  the  Hague  Conferences  of  1899  and 
1907.  Japan  was  welcomed  to  that  of  1904  on  unquestioned 
terms  of  full  equality.  Both  in  respect  to  public  and  to  private 
international  law,  the  Christian  and  non-Christian  nations  are 
working  together. 

The  Hague  Conferences  of  1899  and  1907  have  codified  the 
laws  of  war  on  land  and  sea  for  the  whole  world  even  more 
fully  than  the  rules  of  private  international  law  have  yet  been 
codified.  By  settling  points  which  before  were  doubtful,  much 
has  been  done  in  both  directions  to  remove  occasions  of  inter¬ 
national  controversy  and  also  to  quiet  such  controversies  should 
they  nevertheless  arise. 

The  permanent  neutralization-  of  a  country  creates  a  status 
which  modern  international  law  is  disposed  to  recognize,  every 
instance  of  which  adds  a  new  illustration  of  the  prosperity 
which  peace  brings  with  it.  These  neutralizations,  in  an 
effective  form,  are  chiefly  the  work  of  the  last  hundred  years. 
Switzerland,  Belgium,  Luxemburg,  the  Ionian  Islands,  the 
Congo  Free  State,  —  these  dot  the  globe  with  living  illustra¬ 
tions  of  what  peace  is.  A  neutralized  country  needs  no  great 
military  or  naval  force,  no  costly  fortifications, —  and  has  none. 
It  is  spared  all  taxation  for  such  objects.  If  war  breaks  out 
between  its  neighbors,  its  own  interests  are  still  protected,  and 
protected  by  solemn  engagements  that  international  law  holds 
stronger  than  armies.  If  neutralization  of  one  country  can  be 
secured  by  the  guarantees  of  a  few  great  powers,  which  the 
lesser  ones  must  respect  because  the  collective  force  behind 
them  is  so  imposing,  one  cannot  fail  to  see  that  should,  in  the 
advance  of  international  law,  all  the  powers  of  the  world  guar¬ 
antee  the  territorial  integrity  of  each,  it  would  in  effect  be 
simply  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  neutralization  policy  —  a 
policy  which  a  hundred  years  has  proved  to  be  one  of  solid 
value  as  a  safeguard  against  war.* 

*  In  all  that  period  but  one  flagrant  violation  of  the  principle  of  permanent  neutralization  has 
occurred.  The  republic  of  Cracow,  given  this  quality  in  1815  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  and  placed 
under  the  special  protection  ot  Russia,  Austria  and  frussia,  was  nevertheless  annexed  to  Austria, 
after  a  fruitless  resistance,  in  184*) ;  and  although  France  and  England  protested,  they  did  not  inter¬ 
vene  with  force.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  in  the  present  condition  of  international  morals  and 
international  law  such  an  occurrence  would  be  practically  impossible. 


An  interesting  study  of  the  possibilities  in  this  direction,  by 
a  Canadian  lawyer,  Mr.  Jerome  Internoscia  of  Montreal,  has 
recently  been  published.  He  proposes  a  conference  of  all 
nations  to  agree  on  a  common  code,  which  to  some  extent  shall 
lay  down  both  a  national  law  for  each  and  an  international  law 
for  all.  It  is,  among  other  things,  to  abolish  war  ;  but  this  end 
he  would  achieve  by  the  creation  of  a  court  of  all  nations,  hav¬ 
ing  some  legislative  and  supreme  judicial  powers,  whose  judg¬ 
ments  each  nation  shall  be  compelled  to  respect,  because  if  it 
does  not  they  will  be  enforced  by  the  strong  hand  ;  in  short 
by  war,  leading  after  conquest  to  the  extinction  of  the  offending 
power,  by  selling  off  its  territory  to  the  highest  bidder. 

This  rather  fantastic  project  may  serve  to  make  more  plain 
the  natural  influences  which,  under  the  principle  of  evolution, 
are  slowly  making  themselves  felt  in  gradual  yet  successive 
advances  towards  the  same  goal.  Every  new  instance  of  neu¬ 
tralization,  achieved  by  the  intervention  of  a  few  great  powers, 
helps  to  familiarize  the  world  with  the  nature  of  the  process, 
and  to  make  clear  the  facility  with  which  it  can  be  extended. 
What  five  powers  can  guarantee  with  assurance,  ten  or  twenty 
or  forty  can  guarantee  with  greater  assurance,  and  in  all  proba¬ 
bility  from  motives  more  unselfish,  and  therefore  more  likely  to 

be  viewed  with  general  respect. 

Every  new  rule  of  international  law  laid  down  by  a  congress 
of  many  nations,  called  to  deliberate  on  a  few  subjects,  such 
as  those  held  during  the  last  twenty  years  at  The  Hague,  helps 
also  to  familiarize  the  world  with  the  power  of  such  a  congress, 
called  to  act  on  a  wider  range  of  subjects,  to  lay  down  rules  on 
any  matter  and  all  matters  of  a  universal  character. 

In  introducing  his  draft  code  of  international  law,  Mr. 
Internoscia  well  says  that  quarrels  and  petty  controversies 
between  nations  come  generally  from  the  violation,  real  or 
apparent,  of  some  private  right,  and  that  more  than  half  the 
cases  of  violations  of  private  right  have  their  origin  in  the 
administration  of  justice  towards  foreigners. 

The  extensions  of  Private  International  Law  made  by  the  suc¬ 
cessive  Hague  Conferences,  for  Europe,  indicate  what  may  be 
accomplished  in  the  same  direction,  by  similar  agencies,  for  the 
rest  of  the  civilized  world. 

Every  new  rule  of  international  law,  plainly  stated  by  recog¬ 
nized  authority,  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  its  acceptance, 
diminishes  opportunities  for  misunderstandings  and  differences, 
which  else  might  lead  to  unfriendliness  between  nations,  and 


I  20 


perhaps  to  war.  It  directs  attention,  also,  to  the  nature  of  the 
authority  by  which  the  rule  is  promulgated,  and  in  a  way  that 
strengthens  that  authority.  It  is  seen  not  only  that  many 
nations,  acting  together,  have  an  authority  that  belongs  to  none 
of  them  alone,  and  therefore  is  above  that  commonly  attributed 
to  national  sovereignty,  but  that  they  have  a  right  to  that 
authority,  demonstrated  by  the  beneficence  of  the  result,  and 
accentuated  by  the  absence  of  any  display  of  the  outward 
and  visible  signs  of  authority.  War  seems  pushed  into  the 
background.  Its  domain  is  narrowed.  Something  better 
comes  to  replace  it  as  the  governing  force  in  international 
relations. 

International  law,  like  every  other  doctrine  of  man,  has 
two  sides,  that  of  theory  and  that  of  practice.  Rights  are 
worth  little  unless  they  can  be  enforced  by  courts.  Courts  are 
worth  little  unless  they  proceed  by  settled  rules,  fairly  con¬ 
ceived  and  fairly  followed. 

During  the  past  twenty  years  great  advances  have  been 
made  towards  assimilating  the  rules  of  judicial  practice  on  cer¬ 
tain  subjects  throughout  the  world.  I  have  already  alluded  to 
the  convention  framed  by  the  Hague  Conference  to  promote 
Private  International  Law,  on  international  civil  procedure, 
now  adopted  by  substantially  all  Continental  Europe.  It 
covers  but  a  few  points,  but  those  are  of  considerable  impor¬ 
tance  for  the  convenience  of  suitors. 

Last  fall  a  diplomatic  conference  of  twenty-three  nations 
was  held  at  Brussels  to  try  to  devise  international  rules,  both 
of  right  and  of  civil  procedure,  in  controversies  growing  out  of 
commerce  by  sea.  The  United  States  were  parties  to  this 
conference,  with  five  other  American  powers.  Asia  sent 
Japan,  and  all  the  great  powers  were  represented.  Conventions 
were  framed  respecting  collisions,  and  salvage  claims,  and 
projects  of  two  other  conventions,  on  limiting  the  liabilities 
of  shipowners,  and  on  maritime  liens. 

Should  these  conventions  and  projects  be  finally  ratified  by 
the  governments  concerned,  as  is  not  improbable,  they  would 
go  far  towards  establishing  a  common  code  of  maritime  law 
and  admiralty  practice  in  civil  causes  for  the  whole  world.  It 
is  obvious  how  much  this  would  tend  to  remove  occasions 
of  international  dispute.  Universal  law,  universally  executed 
by  the  same  rules  of  procedure,  throws  open  the  gates  of  peace 
for  every  field  over  which  its  domain  is  recognized.  If  the 
world  begins  by  unifying  its  law  for  maritime  transactions,  it 


I  2  I 


can  proceed  with  some  assurance  to  the  task  of  unifying  its  law 
for  transactions  unconnected  with  the  seas. 

In  its  main  outlines  the  law  of  the  sea  has  been  substan¬ 
tially  one  for  all  nations  since  the  Middle  Ages,  and  it  has 
been  administered  by  courts  of  admiralty  in  a  manner  substan¬ 
tially  the  same.  It  has  been  thus  easier  to  devise  plans,  such 
as  those  of  the  Brussels  Conference,  for  still  more  exact  uni¬ 
formity.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  great  advance  to  have  what  has 
grown  up  without  any  formal  international  agreement  con¬ 
firmed  and  extended  by  such  agreements.  It  is  a  step  which, 
once  taken,  is  not  likely  to  be  retraced. 

Formal  conferences  of  nations,  like  those  of  Montevideo  and 
The  Hague  and  Brussels,  make  for  peace,  not  only  by  removing 
occasions  of  difference  in  the  disposition  of  international  ques¬ 
tions,  but  by  habituating  the  powers  concerned  to  conditions 
which  belong  to  peace  and  are  disturbed  by  war.  A  congress 
called  together  to  formulate  a  doctrine  of  law  confirms  the 
respect  which  good  citizens  pay  to  law,  and  strengthens  the 
feeling  that  in  the  regulation  of  international  relations  law  is 
the  permanent  force  and  war  an  anomaly. 

The  more  civilized  a  country  is,  the  less  ought  to  be,  and 
generally  is,  the  display  of  military  force  on  the  part  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  There  will  be  compliance  with  the  rules  of  conduct 
which  it  prescribes,  because  they  are  the  law  of  the  land,  and 
it  is  the  general  feeling  that  it  is  the  duty  of  good  citizens  to 
obey  the  law.  A  moral  sentiment  is  behind  it,  and  sentiment 
rules  every  people. 

So  it  is  coming  to  be,  in  the  twentieth  century,  between 
nations.  They  are  governed  by  international  law.  In  proportion 
to  their  civilization,  they  respect  its  authority.  Each  power,  in 
recognizing  its  rules,  consents  to  them  ;  and  where  there  is 
consent  force  is  unnecessary. 

International  law  is  the  legal  expression  in  set  terms  of  the 
public  opinion  of  the  civilized  world  as  to  certain  points.  Each 
new  point  thus  given  form  is  a  step  away  from  the  field  of  war. 
It  is  thus  that  international  law  is  becoming,  with  every 
passing  year,  a  larger  factor  towards  the  keeping  unbroken  of 
the  peace  of  the  world. 

The  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Peace  Society  was 
opened  with  an  address  by  its  first  Vice-President,  Hon.  John 
W.  Foster  of  Washington,  ex-Secretary  of  State,  who,  in  the 
absence  of  Hon.  Robert  Treat  Paine,  acted  as  chairman. 


Mr.  Foster’s  address,  “War  Not  Inevitable,”  was  illustrated  by 
incidents  taken  from  the  history  of  the  United  States.  It 
read  : 


WAR  NOT  INEVITABLE* 

Hon.  John  W.  Foster,  ex-Secretary  of  State. 

I  have  been  asked  to  speak  on  the  topic,  “War  Not  Inevi¬ 
table,”  and  to  illustrate  it  from  the  history  of  our  own  country. 

At  the  very  threshold  of  the  consideration  of  such  a  subject 
the  question  presents  itself  :  Is  it  reasonable  to  expect  peace 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  is  it  practicable  to  main¬ 
tain  such  peace  ?  I  fear  that  the  prevailing  answer  to  these 
questions  would  be  in  the  negative.  Among  even  the  most 
enlightened  and  Christian  nations  is  there  not  a  predominant 
sentiment  that  war  is  not  only  inevitable,  but  that  sometimes 
it  is  necessary  ? 

The  substitute  for  or  preventive  of  war,  arbitration,  is  held 
to  be  merely  a  method  of  adjusting  minor  international  differ¬ 
ences,  and  it  is  contended  that  political  questions  involving 
national  policy,  honor  or  territory,  should  not  be  relegated  to 
a  tribunal  however  exalted,  but  that  in  the  extreme  resort  they 
must  be  determined  by  the  arbitrament  or  war. 

Besides,  there  are  many  who  claim  that  war  is  not  an  unmixed 
evil ;  that  it  stimulates  patriotism  ;  that  it  makes  men  more 
virile  ;  that  it  reduces  redundant  population  ;  that  it  is  a  healthy 
stimulus  among  nations ;  that  decay  and  disintegration  are  the  fate 
of  nations  which  do  not  maintain  a  state  of  preparedness  for  war. 

Writers  of  the  history  of  nations,  the  chroniclers  of  wars, 
and  most  statesmen  are  inclined  to  take  one  or  more  of  the 
foregoing  pessimistic  views  of  the  relations  of  states  to  each 
other.  An  Englishman,  one  of  the  most  intelligent  writers  on 
questions  of  the  Far  East,  the  recent  storm  center  of  war,  in  a 
late  work  on  “The  Coming  Struggle  in  Eastern  Asia,”  uses  this 
language  :  “  The  sterilization  begotten  of  a  long  peace  is  as 
much  the  Nemesis  of  a  nation  as  the  vainglory  of  a  Napoleon 
who  threw  himself  to  the  other  extreme.  Moderation  in  war 
and  moderation  in  peace  is  the  line  along  which  the  successful 
nation  must  necessarily  progress.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive 
of  a  world  presided  over  by  international  lawgivers,  such  as  is 
the  strange  ideal  of  some.  To  succeed  in  realizing  such  dreams 
it  would  first  be  necessary  to  emasculate  mankind.  War  is 
necessary  to  mankind.  All  history  shows  it  to  be  inevitable.’’ 


123 


A  Senator  of  the  United  States,  one  of  the  most  prominent 
and  influential  members  of  that  high  legislative  body,  was 
recently  approached  with  a  view  to  securing  his  cooperation  in 
a  movement  for  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  international 
tribunal  of  arbitral  justice,  such  as  was  proposed  at  the  last 
Hague  Peace  Conference.  The  report  to  me  of  the  gentleman 
who  conferred  with  the  Senator  is  as  follows:  “The  Senator 
pooh-poohed  the  idea  of  a  permanent,  judicial  and  binding  court 
of  arbitration.  He  said  the  war  expenditures  were  trivial 
(except  pensions,  which  cannot  be  touched),  and  that  the 
United  States  would  never  agree  to  refer  questions  involving 
the  honor  or  territory  of  this  country  to  any  court  of  arbitra¬ 
tion  ;  that  the  people  would  never  tolerate  such  a  suggestion 
for  a  moment.” 

Do  this  British  author  and  this  American  statesman  repre¬ 
sent  any  considerable  body  of  public  sentiment  among  our 
Anglo-American  peoples  ?  If  so,  the  friends  of  international 
peace  have  a  serious  task  before  them  in  converting  the 
English-speaking  world  to  a  policy  of  peace  and  goodwill  among 
the  nations.  Our  history  shows  that  war  is  popular  with  the 
masses  of  our  people.  The  conduct  of  our  legislators  and 
public  men  in  times  of  controversy  with  foreign  governments 
has  been  largely  controlled  by  their  knowledge  that  the  great 
body  of  the  people  would  approve  heartily  a  call  to  arms. 
Hence  the  important  work  before  us  is  to  seek  to  create  a 
strong  public  sentiment  hostile  to  war.  It  is  apparent  that  at 
present  it  does  not  exist  in  our  country. 

Let  us  examine  the  assertions  that  war  is  inevitable  and 
sometimes  necessary.  We  have  been  accustomed  to  look  upon 
the  contests  of  past  ages  as  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  conquest 
or  entered  upon  under  trivial  pretexts  and  without  reason,  to 
satisfy  the  whims  of  autocratic  or  ambitious  rulers  ;  but  that 
since  the  nations  of  Europe  and  America  have  assumed  the 
form  of  constitutional  and  representative  governments  they 
have  not  appealed  to  arms  except  for  alleged  grave  reasons  of 
state  involving  the  honor  and  high  interests  of  the  countries 
concerned.  The  United  States,  since  it  attained  its  independ¬ 
ence,  has  been  in  three  foreign  wars.  These  were  entered 
upon  under  the  constitutional  requirement  of  an  express  vote 
of  Congress.  It  may  throw  some  light  upon  the  subject  we 
are  discussing  if  we  inquire  how  far  these  three  wars  were 
inevitable  or  necessary. 

I  premise  by  saying  that  the  Revolutionary  War  was  a  revolt 


from  the  mother  country,  and  therefore  does  not  fall  within  the 
category  of  foreign  wars  ;  and  yet,  if  the  controversy  which 
occasioned  it  had  arisen  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
century  in  place  of  the  eighteenth,  there  would  have  been  no 
necessity  for  it.  More  than  fifty  years  ago,  when  there  was 
considerable  agitation  in  Canada  for  independence  or  annexation 
to  the  United  States,  the  London  Times ,  reflecting  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  the  government  and  people  of  Great  Britain,  used  this 
positive  language  :  “  We  have  been  taught  wisdom  by  experi¬ 
ence,  and  the  most  valuable  as  well  as  the  most  costly  of  our 
lessons  has  been  taught  by  the  barren  issue  of  a  conflict  with  a 
province  which  from  remonstrance  drifted  to  rebellion  and 
crowned  rebellion  with  independence.  We  should  not  go  to 
war  for  the  sterile  honor  of  retaining  a  reluctant  colony  in  sub¬ 
jection.  We  should  not  purchase  an  unwilling  obedience  by  the 
outlay  of  treasure  or  blood.”  Should  Canada  to-day,  resolutely 
and  with  a  fair  degree  of  unanimity,  determine  to  set  up  an  in¬ 
dependent  government,  it  would  meet  with  no  armed  opposition 
from  Great  Britain. 

The  War  of  1812,  our  first  foreign  conflict,  was  far  from 
being  inevitable.  While  it  was  justifiable,  according  to  the  rules 
of  international  law,  the  better  sentiment  of  the  country  was 
opposed  to  it.  The  President,  Mr.  Madison,  did  all  in  his  power 
to  prevent  it,  but  he  was  overruled  by  a  few  fiery  spirits  in 
Congress  known  as  the  “War  Hawks,”  Henry  Clay  and  John 
C.  Calhoun,  then  young  men,  being  the  leaders  who  played  upon 
the  sentiment  of  hostility  at  that  time  so  fresh  against  England. 
The  declaration  of  war  was  passed  by  Congress,  after  a  long  and 
heated  debate,  a  large  minority  vote  being  cast  against  it.  Five 
days  after  this  action,  but  unknown  in  America  owing  to  the 
slow  means  of  communication,  the  Orders  in  Council  were 
repealed,  and  thus  the  main  cause  of  the  war  was  removed. 

The  fateful  decision  had  been  made,  and  Mr.  Clay,  the  leader 
of  the  war  party,  predicted  the  conquest  of  Canada  and  that  we 
would  dictate  peace  at  Quebec  or  Halifax.  But  our  armies 
crossed  the  frontier  only  to  be  driven  back  in  defeat,  and  though 
we  gained  some  glory  on  the  water,  the  conflict  was  barren  of 
results,  and  we  made  peace  without  settling  a  single  question 
about  which  we  entered  on  the  contest.  Never  was  a  war  more 
fruitless  in  its  conclusion.  It  was  neither  inevitable  nor 
necessary. 

It  is  the  judgment  of  history  that  our  second  foreign  war  — 
that  with  Mexico  —  was  provoked  on  our  part,  and  that  it  was 


125 


largely  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  slavery  extension.  Although 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  a  revolted  colony  of  Mexico,  led  to  the 
armed  contest,  the  immediate  cause  of  the  conflict  was  a  dis¬ 
puted  question  of  territory.  Our  government  at  the  same  time 
had  a  similar  territorial  question  on  our  northwest  coast  with 
Great  Britain  even  of  a  more  heated  character.  The  party 
which  elected  Mr.  Polk  to  the  Presidency  had  declared  for 
“fifty-four  forty  or  fight”;  that  is,  we  must  contend  at  the 
hazard  of  war  for  our  extreme  claim  against  England.  But 
just  then  the  British  had  concluded  a  war  with  China,  and  had 
a  strong  army  and  a  formidable  navy  which  could -be  sent  at 
once  to  the  territory  in  dispute.  Under  such  circumstances 
our  government  prudently  decided  to  make  terms  with  England, 
and  surrendered  our  claim  to  more  than  half  of  the  territory  in 
dispute. 

Our  conduct  with  our  weaker  neighbor  on  the  south  was  in 
marked  contrast.  Without  waiting  for  the  result  of  negotia¬ 
tions,  President  Polk,  with  no  authority  from  Congress,  sent  an 
army  under  General  Taylor  to  occupy  the  disputed  territory, 
and  thus  precipitated  a  war  which,  as  I  have  said,  in  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  historians,  almost  without  exception,  has  been  pro¬ 
nounced  not  only  unnecessary,  but  unjustifiable.  A  book  has 
recently  appeared  which  is  written  with  a  view  to  reverse  this 
judgment,  but  it  furnishes  new  proofs  to  sustain  the  judgment, 
in  the  declaration  of  President  Tyler,  who  brought  about  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  that  “the  question  of  boundaries  was  pur¬ 
posely  left  open  for  negotiation,”  which  he  expected  would  be 
adjusted  “by  pacific  arrangement”;  and  he  accused  his  suc¬ 
cessor  of  having  precipitated  war  by  advancing  Taylor’s  troops 
to  the  Rio  Grande.  Although  the  results  of  the  war  were 
greatly  to  the  advantage  of  the  United  States,  that  does  not 
change  the  fact  that  it  was  provoked  on  our  part,  and  was  one 
of  conquest  and  injustice. 

The  Civil  War  was  domestic,  not  international,  in  its  char¬ 
acter,  and  hence  not  to  be  included  in  our  present  examination  ; 
but  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing  that,  though  possibly  the 
questions  of  the  right  of  secession  and  the  continued  existence 
of  slavery  could  not  have  been  settled  in  the  existing  state  of 
public  sentiment  except  by  a  resort  to  arms,  yet  how  much 
more  economical  it  would  have  been  to  have  purchased  peace 
by  paying  the  full  value  of  every  slave  emancipated  ;  and  how 
many  thousands  of  lives  would  have  been  saved,  the  wretched 
experience  of  reconstruction  days  have  been  avoided,  and  the 


126 


bitterness  and  hate  engendered  by  the  fearful  contest  never 
have  been  created. 

The  war  with  Spain  possessed  some  of  the  characteristics  of 
that  of  1812  with  Great  Britain.  The  President  was  strongly 
opposed  to  a  resort  to  arms  and  struggled  for  peace  to  the  last, 
but  the  feeling  in  Congress  and  the  agitation  in  the  press  called 
loudly  for  hostilities.  I  entertain  no  doubt  that  the  Spanish 
government  would  have  granted  at  the  end  of  the  negotiations 
the  demand  of  our  government  for  the  complete  colonial 
autonomy  of  Cuba  and  practical  independence  such  as  Canada 
enjoys.  But  the  ill-timed  catastrophe  of  the  explosion  of  the 
“  Maine  ”  in  the  harbor  of  Havana  seemed  to  cause  our  people 
to  lose  their  reason  and  led  the  President  to  entrust  the  issue 
to  Congress,  where  it  was  hastily  decided. 

The  cause  of  the  destruction  of  the  “  Maine  ”  has  not  yet 
been  accurately  ascertained.  The  Spanish  government  pro¬ 
posed  that  the  question  be  submitted  to  an  international  court 
of  inquiry,  but  our  government  declined  the  proposal,  preferring 
to  rely  upon  the  report  of  our  own  navy  officials.  From  my 
acquaintance  with  the  Spanish  people  I  have  never  been  able 
to  bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  catastrophe  was  caused  by 
Spanish  officials,  or  with  their  knowledge,  There  has  been  an 
almost  criminal  neglect  on  our  part  to  raise  the  “  Maine,”  whose 
wreck  lies  as  an  unsightly  obstruction  in  the  harbor  of  Havana, 
with  the  festering  bodies  of  many  scores  of  gallant  men  denied 
a  soldier’s  burial.  From  my  conversation  with  officers  of  high 
rank  in  the  navy,  I  am  inclined  to  the  belief  that  our  delin¬ 
quency  in  this  respect  is  occasioned  by  the  fear  that  it  would 
be  found  that  the  destruction  was  caused  by  an  internal  explo¬ 
sion,  and  that  the  war  was  precipitated  by  an  event  for  which 
the  Spanish  government  was  in  no  wise  responsible. 

The  “Maine”  disaster  was  not  the  declared  object  of  the 
war,  but  the  independence  of  Cuba ;  and  diplomacy  to  that  end 
had  not  exhausted  its  resources  when  Congress  took  action. 
President  Taft  has  recently  declared  it  to  have  been  an  altru¬ 
istic  war.  That  is  true,  but  how  far  one  nation  is  justified  in 
imposing  upon  another  through  its  army  and  navy  its  idea  of 
political  morality  and  government  is  an  open  question.  Our 
experience  with  Cuba,  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines  in  the 
last  ten  years  has  presented  to  us  in  a  new  light  some  of  the 
embarrassments  Spain  had  to  contend  with  in  the  government 
of  those  islands,  and  has  created  a  division  of  sentiment  among 
us  as  to  the  wisdom  of  assuming  responsibility  for  their 


127 


government.  But  it  is  historically  correct  to  assert  that  the  war 
was  forced  upon  Spain  by  us,  and  that  it  might  easily  have 
been  avoided  with  honor. 

The  Spanish  War  has  demonstrated  the  evil  effects  of  an 
aggressive  war,  entered  upon  without  proper  deliberation,  under 
the  whip  and  spur  of  undue  public  excitement.  If  before  that 
war  was  declared  Spain  had  offered  to  transfer  to  us  the  island 
of  Porto  Rico  for  one-fourth  or  one-fifth  of  the  cost  of  that  war, 
we  would  not  have  accepted  the  offer.  We  would  have  said 
that  the  island  was  of  little  or  no  strategic  importance,  and 
would  be  an  element  of  weakness  rather  than  strength  to  our 
continental  territory  ;  that  the  people  were  without  experience 
in  government,  without  sympathy  with  our  institutions,  of  dif¬ 
ferent  race,  language  and  religion,  very  ignorant  and  of  a  low 
grade  of  morality,  a  people  whom  it  would  require  generations 
of  time  to  assimilate  with  us ;  that,  so  far  from  shedding  one 
drop  of  American  blood  for  their  acquisition,  we  would  find  the 
island  a  constant  expense  and  incubus,  and  we  should  have 
declined  even  its  free  gift.  Much  less  would  we  have  accepted 
the  Philippines  on  the  other  side  of  the  globe,  if  offered  us 
before  the  war,  for  one-half  of  the  hundreds  of  millions  which 
it  cost  us,  with  a  population  even  more  objectionable  than  that 
of  Porto  Rico,  largely  pagan  and  Mohammedan,  a  territory 
which  would  be  an  element  of  weakness  in  time  of  war  and  a 
heavy  expense  in  peace. 

So,  too,  it  might  have  cooled  the  warlike  ardor  of  many  an 
American  taxpayer  to  have  been  told  that  the  war  upon  which 
we  were  about  to  enter  would  end  in  the  permanent  enlarge¬ 
ment  of  our  military  establishment,  that  our  navy  would  seek 
rivalry  with  the  greatest  nations  of  Europe,  and  that  our  annual 
expenses  for  military  purposes  would  amount  to  seventy-two 
per  cent,  of  the  entire  government  expenditures.  These  con¬ 
siderations,  with  others  of  a  like  nature,  if  they  had  been  prop¬ 
erly  and  calmly  examined  by  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
might  have  led  our  Congress  to  delay,  if  not  forego,  the  acts 
which  inaugurated  the  hostilities  against  Spain.  We  never 
can  tell  to  what  extremities  a  foreign  war  may  lead  us. 

The  examination  of  the  detailed  facts  attending  the  origin 
of  our  foreign  wars  shows  that  in  every  case  the  initial  step 
attending  hostilities  was  taken  by  us,  that  they  were  not  inev¬ 
itable,  and  that  they  all  might  have  been  avoided  with  honor. 
And  the  same  may  be  said  of  almost  all  wars  of  modern 
times,  especially  those  between  civilized  and  Christian  nations. 


128 


Secretary  Elihu  Root  has  well  stated  the  situation  in  his  address 
at  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  of  the  building  for  the  Bureau 
of  the  American  Republics,  when  he  said  :  “  There  are  no  in¬ 
ternational  controversies  so  serious  that  they  cannot  be  settled 
peaceably  if  both  parties  really  desire  peaceable  settlement ; 
while  there  are  few  causes  of  dispute  so  trifling  that  they  can¬ 
not  be  made  the  occasion  of  war  if  either  party  really  desires 
war.  The  matters  in  dispute  between  nations  are  nothing  ; 
the  spirit  which  deals  with  them  is  everything.” 

The  truth  of  Mr.  Root’s  assertion  has  been  well  illustrated 
in  our  relations  with  Great  Britain,  and  the  history  of  these 
relations  shows  how  easy  it  is  for  nations  to  avoid  war  if  they 
desire  to  do  so.  If  we  review  the  relations  of  the  two  coun¬ 
tries  since  our  independence,  we  shall  find  that  almost  every 
possible  question  of  controversy  of  an  international  character 
has  arisen  between  them,  some  of  them  of  the  most  irritating 
and  threatening  character,  and  yet  in  only  one  instance  did 
they  fail  of  a  peaceful  and  honorable  settlement.  It  may  be 
profitable  to  note  some  of  these  events. 

Soon  after  our  treaty  of  peace  and  independence  in  1783 
serious  trouble  arose  respecting  the  execution  of  its  stipula¬ 
tions,  and  the  angry  controversy  threatened  to  again  open  hos¬ 
tilities.  But  President  Washington  adopted  the  extraordinary 
course  of  sending  our  Chief  Justice,  John  Jay,  to  London  as  a 
special  plenipotentiary.  A  treaty  was  signed,  but  so  strongly 
was  it  opposed  at  home  that  it  was  approved  by  the  Senate  by 
a  bare  constitutional  majority.  By  its  terms  matters  which 
could  not  otherwise  be  adjusted  were  referred  to  arbitration 
commissioners. 

I  have  already  discussed  the  facts  attending  the  War  of  1812, 
and  shown  that  in  this  single  instance  in  which  we  have 
resorted  to  war  with  Great  Britain  it  was  brought  on  by  our 
own  precipitate  action,  and  might  have  been  avoided  with 
honor. 

In  1817,  when  General  Jackson  invaded  Florida,  and  seized 
and  hung  two  British  subjects,  the  state  of  public  feeling  in 
England  was  so  intense  that  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs 
stated  that  war  might  have  been  declared  “  if  the  Ministry  had 
but  held  up  a  finger.”  But  our  government  had  the  manliness 
to  disavow  the  act  and  the  war  cloud  passed. 

The  contention  respecting  the  northeastern  boundary  be¬ 
tween  Maine  and  Canada  was  for  many  years  the  subject  of 
angry  controversy.  At  one  time  the  armed  forces  of  the  two 


adjoining  sections  were  so  near  to  opening  hostilities  that  it  was 
necessary  to  dispatch  General  Scott  to  the  scene  backed  by 
the  authority  of  the  federal  government  to  quell  the  excite¬ 
ment  and  prevent  open  war.  In  time  a  peaceful  settlement 
was  found  by  the  special  British  plenipotentiary  sent  to  Wash¬ 
ington  and  Secretary  Webster. 

Not  long  afterwards  a  similar  controversy  arose  over  the 
northwest  boundary.  A  President  was  elected  upon  a  platform 
demanding  our  extreme  territorial  pretension,  with  the  cam¬ 
paign  cry  of  “fifty-four  forty  or  fight.”  But  after  the  excite¬ 
ment  of  the  campaign  was  passed,  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
the  British  Minister,  in  the  calm  domain  of  diplomacy,  sought 
and  found  a  middle  course  which  brought  peace  with  honor. 

We  all  remember  the  “Trent”  affair  during  our  Civil  War, 
when,  with  the  angry  passions  of  that  fratricidal  strife  at  their 
height,  our  Congress  and  people  went  wild  with  commendation 
of  the  illegal  act  of  our  heroic  naval  commander,  and  the 
British  army  and  navy  were  promptly  put  in  battle  array  to 
resent  the  insult  to  their  flag.  But  President  Lincoln  and 
Secretary  Seward  pursued  the  only  honorable  course,  acknowl¬ 
edged  the  error,  released  the  Confederate  prisoners,  and  the 
danger  was  over. 

The  history  of  that  critical  period  in  the  life  of  our  nation 
contains  a  narrative  of  the  trials  through  which  we  passed  in 
our  relations  with  Great  Britain,  when  our  representative, 
Charles  Francis  Adams,  declared  to  the  Ministry  that  the 
conduct  of  their  government  relative  to  the  Confederate 
cruisers  meant  war,  and  gave  the  warning  that  after  our 
domestic  strife  was  over  we  should  hold  their  government 
responsible  for  its  unfriendly  course  in  the  hour  of  our  dis¬ 
tress.  On  the  return  of  peace,  when  the  “Alabama  claims” 
were  pressed  and  a  settlement  by  arbitration  was  proposed,  the 
answer  of  the  Ministry  then  in  power  was  that  the  matter 
involved  the  dignity  of  the  British  Crown  and  the  honor  of 
the  British  nation,  and  that  these  could  not  be  made  the  subject 
of  arbitration.  But  after  the  passions  awakened  by  the  war 
had  subsided  and  a  new  ministry  was  called  to  power  in  Great 
Britain,  the  question  of  national  honor  disappeared  and  the 
matters  in  dispute  were  referred  to  arbitration.  There  is  no 
more  illustrious  page  in  the  annals  of  America  or  Great  Britain 
than  the  record  of  the  Geneva  arbitration  tribunal. 

The  settlement  of  the  northwest  boundary  by  the  treaty  of 
1846,  owing  to  want  of  geographical  knowledge  or  accuracy  of 


130 


language,  was  followed  by  a  dispute  as  to  San  Juan  Island, 
which  was  being  colonized  by  both  American  and  Canadian 
settlers.  Angry  controversy  arose  and  armed  strife  was  threat¬ 
ened,  which  was  only  allayed  by  again  dispatching  General 
Scott  to  the  disputed  territory.  After  various  attempts  at 
adjustment  by  diplomacy  extending  through  a  series  of  years, 
the  question  was  submitted  to  the  arbitration  of  the  Emperor 
of  Germany,  who  rendered  a  decision  in  favor  of  the  United 

States. 

Only  a  few  years  ago  the  Alaskan  boundary  was  the  subject 
of  conflicting  claims  and  angry  debates  in  legislative  halls  and 
the  public  press.  We  felt  that  our  claim  was  so  strong  and  our 
occupation  so  long  that  arbitration  of  the  question  was  out  of 
place.  After  diplomacy  had  exhausted  its  resources,  the  ques¬ 
tion  went  finally  to  a  joint  commission,  and  by  the  award  of 
the  British  judge  the  claim  of  the  United  States  was  sustained. 

From  the  very  foundation  of  our  government  the  Northeast 
Fisheries  have  been  a  subject  of  irritation  and  dispute.  It  was 
one  of  the  troublesome  questions  to  adjust  in  the  negotiations 
resulting  in  the  treaty  of  peace  and  independence  of  1783. 
Time  and  again  vain  efforts  have  been  made  to  settle  it  by 
treaty  stipulations.  Almost  all  of  our  great  statesmen  and  dip¬ 
lomats  during  the  past  century  and  a  quarter  have  participated 
in  the  attempts  at  settlement.  Many  of  our  vessels  have  been 
seized,  and  their  officers  and  crews  imprisoned  and  other  sum¬ 
mary  treatment  inflicted  on  them  by  the  authorities  of  Canada 
and  Newfoundland  ;  and  great  indignation  has  been  manifested 
in  our  country  thereat.  Finally  this  question,  hoary  with  dip¬ 
lomatic  age  and  parliamentary  debate,  has  been  referred  to  the 
arbitration  of  a  Hague  tribunal,  and  before  the  present  year 
closes  it  is  hoped  that  this  spectre  of  danger  to  the  peace  of 
the  two  nations  will  be  forever  laid  at  rest. 

Every  one  of  these  questions  of  difference  just  mentioned 
possessed  sufficient  elements  of  honor,  vital  interests  or  na¬ 
tional  concern  to  warrant  their  being  casus  belli  if  either  of  the 
parties  thereto,  as  Mr.  Root  expressed  it,  had  really  desired  war. 
And  doubtless  if  we  had  sought  settlement  of  any  one  of  them 
by  military  force  tens  of  thousands  of  patriots  would  have 
rushed  to  our  standard  to  defend  the  interests  of  the  country 
by  slaughtering  their  kinsmen,  and  our  legislators  would  have 
cheerfully  voted  appropriations  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars 
to  defend  an  interest  not  worth  probably  a  tithe  of  the  cost. 
What  better  illustration  can  we  have  of  the  wisdom  of  the  policy 


1 3 1 

of  the  peaceful  settlement  of  international  questions  of  differ¬ 
ence  pursued  by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  during 
the  last  hundred  years  ?  And  if  this  policy  may  be  so  success¬ 
fully  followed  by  two  proud  nations  which  have  so  many  intricate 
and  irritating  questions  to  settle,  why  may  it  not  be  followed 
with  profit  by  and  with  other  nations  of  the  world  ? 

These  two  governments  have  likewise  furnished  an  illustrious 
example  of  successful  naval  disarmament.  The  close  of  the 
War  of  1812  found  a  large  naval  armament  of  both  nations  on 
the  Great  Lakes.  It  was  agreed  that  all  of  these  should  be 
removed,  and  that  thereafter  each  government  would  limit  itself 
to  maintaining  one  vessel  on  each  of  the  lower  lakes  and  two 
on  the  upper  lakes,  the  vessels  not  to  exceed  one  hundred  tons 
and  to  carry  only  one  eighteen-pound  cannon  ;  and  that  thence¬ 
forth  no  vessels  of  war  should  be  built  on  these  lakes.  Since 
the  date  of  that  agreement  their  shores  have  become  the  home 
of  a  vast  population  and  their  waters  of  an  immense  commerce, 
but  there  has  been  no  need  of  a  great  navy  to  preserve  the  peace 
or  protect  that  commerce. 

Within  the  past  few  weeks  we  have  had  another  illustration 
of  the  advantages  of  peaceful  negotiations  over  threats  of  hostile 
conduct.  Under  the  existing  tariff  act  the  President  of  the 
United  States  is  empowered  to  impose  by  proclamation  a  heavy 
retaliation  duty  on  the  products  of  any  country  which  discrimi¬ 
nated  unfairly  against  our  commerce.  It  would  have  been  easy 
for  our  President,  under  a  strict  interpretation  of  the  law  and 
of  Canadian  treaties,  to  have  applied  to  our  northern  neighbors 
our  maximum  tariff,  which  would  have  inaugurated  a  commer¬ 
cial  war  of  gigantic  proportions  very  hurtful  to  the  interests  of 
both  countries.  But  happily  President  Taft  is  a  man  of  peace, 
and  he  invited  the  Canadian  authorities  to  a  conference  which 
resulted  in  a  harmonious  arrangement  satisfactory  to  both  gov¬ 
ernments,  and  the  vast  commerce  across  the  frontier  continues 
undisturbed. 

The  review  which  I  have  made  has  shown  that  all  the  foreign 
wars  in  which  we  have  engaged  were  brought  on  by  our  own 
precipitate  action,  that  they  were  not  inevitable,  and  that  they 
might  have  been  avoided  by  the  exercise  of  prudence  and  con¬ 
ciliation.  It  also  shows  that  it  has  been  possible  for  us  to  live 
in  peace  with  our  nearest  neighbor,  with  which  we  have  the 
most  extensive  and  intimate  relations,  the  most  perplexing  and 
troublesome  questions.  Our  history  also  shows  that  during  our 
whole  life  as  an  independent  nation  no  country  has  shown 


132 


towards  us  a  spirit  of  aggression  or  a  disposition  to  invade  our 
territory.  If  such  is  the  case,  is  it  not  time  that  every  true 
patriot,  every  lover  of  his  country  and  of  its  fair  fame  in  the 
world,  every  friend  of  humanity,  should  strive  to  curb  the  spirit 
of  aggression  and  military  glory  among  our  people  and  seek  to 
create  an  earnest  sentiment  against  all  war  ? 


THE  TEACHERS'  MEETING. 

The  principal  speaker  at  the  teachers’  meeting  was  Mrs. 
Fannie  Fern  Andrews,  who  was  presented  by  Superintendent 
of  Schools  Weaver  of  Hartford,  the  chairman.  Mrs.  Andrews 
spoke  on  the  “  Teacher  and  Internationalism.”  She  gave  an  able 
and  instructive  review  of  the  Hague  Conferences,  and  closed 
with  an  account  of  the  work  and  aims  of  the  American  School 
Peace  League,  both  of  which  she  related  in  a  practical  way  to 
the  mission  of  the  teachers  in  unfolding  to  their  pupils  the 
principles  of  the  new  internationalism.  For  an  outline  sketch 
of  the  league,  see  her  address  at  Tuesday  morning  session. 


BANQUET  AT  THE  ALLYN  HOUSE,  HARTFORD* 

The  spirit  of  the  Congress  had  its  fullest  literary  expression 
at  the  closing  banquet  at  the  Allyn  House  in  the  evening. 
Everything  said  there  lifted  to  a  high  ethical  plane  a  congenial 
company  of  delegates,  of  citizens  of  Hartford  and  New  Britain, 
who  got  together  for  a  farewell  review  of  their  interesting 
week  in  the  study  of  the  peace  movement. 

Dwight  Hewes,  President  of  the  Hartford  Business  Men’s 
Association,  an  institution  that  heartily  supported  the  Con¬ 
gress,  introduced  Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers  as  toastmaster. 
Dean  Rogers  briefly  referred  to  the  important  public  events 
connected  with  the  Congress,  the  opening  session  in  the  State 
Capitol,  with  the  cordial  welcome  of  the  officials,  and  the 
Burritt  celebration  with  its  wonderful  procession.  Never 
before,  he  said,  had  a  community  paused  to  pay  its  tribute  at 
the  grave  of  a  man  whose  only  distinction  was  that  he  had  seen 
the  coming  of  the  time  when  war  should  be  no  more,  and  had 
striven  as  best  he  could  to  hasten  the  coming  of  the  day. 

Senator  George  B.  Chandler,  in  a  speech  full  of  optimism, 
surveyed  the  onward  progress  of  the  world’s  history  from  the 
earliest  times,  comparing  the  political  domination  of  imperial 
Rome  with  the  ethical  domination  of  the  imperial  Christian 
civilization  which  has  followed  it,  and  calling  the  United  States 
to  a  high  sense  of  its  duty  in  relation  to  races  and  nations  that 
needed  its  sympathy  and  help. 

Hon.  Herbert  Knox  Smith,  head  of  the  Bureau  of  Corpora¬ 
tions  at  Washington,  spoke  on  “The  Currents  of  Commerce,” 
emphasizing  the  fact  that  this  is  a  commercial  age,  that  its  dis¬ 
putes,  relating  chiefly  to  tariffs,  boundaries,  international  debts, 
railway,  mining  and  fishing  concessions,  are  commercial  and 
call  for  settlement  by  commercial  tribunals  rather  than  by 
physical  force.  World  peace,  however,  depends  as  much  upon 
the  ethical  ideals  of  the  nations  as  upon  their  legal  machinery. 
The  United  States  is  in  a  position  of  leadership  by  which  it 
can  direct  the  economic  forces  of  the  world  for  good  or  oppres¬ 
sion,  according  as  its  ideals  decree. 

Burges  Johnson  of  New  York  read  the  following  poem  to 


134 


illustrate  the  murderous  and  remorseful  spirit  of  war. 
merit  was  at  once  recognized. 


THE  YANKEE  VETERAN. 

Burges  Johnson. 

Believe  in  war?  Ye  ask  a  question,  son, 

Thet  starts  a  turmoil  underneath  my  hat. 

Jest  fifty  years  ago  I  fit  in  one, 

And  these  old  scars  make  me  believe  in  that. 

And  yit  sometimes  I  waken  aout  of  dreams 

Of  camps  and  marches  and  the  musket’s  crack, 

And  all  the  truth  of  thet  old  war-time  seems 
No  realler  than  th’  dreams  thet  take  me  back. 

Most  allers  I  kin  see  some  trampled  field, 

Er  plundered  barn,  er  homestead’s  flame  and  smoke, 

Er  weak  old  men  thet  whimper  as  they  yield, 

Er  sullen,  silent  grief  of  women  folk. 

I  see  a  lad  come  runnin’  toward  a  wall 
Whar  I  lie  hid,  —  a  boy  my  age  an’  size : 

It  seems ’s  if  I  kin  see  the  speedin’  ball 
Thet  bores  a  hole  between  his  eager  eyes. 

Thet  war  was  War —  it  was  my  job  t’  shoot 
An’  burn  an’  crush,  an’  lurk  behind  a  wall ; 

Then  sleep  untroubled,  nights,  ez  enny  brute,  — 

But  thet  lad’s  face  somehaow  survives  it  all. 

We  both  looked  duty  squaarly  in  th’  face : 

We  both  was  men,  thet’s  haow  we  both  was  thar. 

He  might  hev  got  more  useful  in  his  place 
Than  ever  I  hev  growed,  from  y’ar  to  y’ar. 

His  folks  an’  mine  wa’n’t  diff ’runt  in  their  hearts,  — 
Same  hopes,  same  prayers,  same  old  unselfish  pride 

T’  hev  their  boys  play  all  the  biggest  parts  : 

Then  one  lad  shot  th’  other  ’tween  th’  eyes. 

9 

A  land  must  hev  its  sections,  North  and  Saouth, 

And  East  and  West,  so  be  its  size  is  great; 

Though  other  words  is  often  in  th’  maouth 
Of  pleasant  fellers  thet  I ’ve  heerd  orate. 

And  local  loyalty ’s  a  nat’ral  right,  — 

And  section  rivalry,  it  ’pears  to  me, 

Jest  helps  t’  make  us  hustle  in  th’  fight 

Thet  clean  men  wage  in  enny  place  they  be. 

But  hatred  ?  Kin  I  ever  hate  again 

Th’  Johnny  Rebs  who  fit  beside  thet  lad, 

And  stood  th’  test  t’  prove  thet  they  was  men,  — 
Strong  men  worth  lovin’  fer  th’  sand  they  had  ? 


Its 


Sech  men  don’t  hev  no  hatred  fer  their  kind. 

When  States  sent  all  their  likeliest  manhood  forth, 
A  weaker  sort  was  left  ter  stay  behind 

And  cling  t’  hatred  between  Saouth  and  North. 


Believe  in  war  ?  Perhaps  th’  time  hez  ben 

When  States  was  younger,  and  folks  daoubted  some 
Thet  enny  kind  of  soil  could  raise  up  men 

As  good,  all  raound,  as  them  we  raise  to  hum- 


But  some  of  us  hev  larnt  it  — we  kin  look 

Across  th’  lines  thet  baound  aour  leetle  coast, 
Thumbin’  th’  pages  of  some  atlas-book, 

And  findin’  fust  th’  dot  we  love  th’  most; 


Then  we  kin  rest  a  thumb  on  enny  land, 

Whether  in  pink  er  red  er  green  aoutlined, 

And  say,  “  They  ’re  raisin’  men  thar,  near  my  hand, 
Men  of  th’  eager,  honest,  fightin’  kind.” 


And  we  kin  bet  they  need  each  man-sized  chap 
Right  thar  to  hum,  with  all  his  fightin’  paowers, 
Ef  so  be  their  green  section  of  th’  map 

Is  like  this  light  pink  section  we  call  aours. 


But  then  comes  War.  And  all  those  lads  thet  rate 
As  stalwart  men  go  forth  t’  kill  their  kind, 

Leavin’  a  greater  struggle  in  th’  State 

Ter  be  fought  aout  by  weaklin’s  left  behind. 

******* 

I  miss  thet  lad  —  th’  one  I  never  knew. 

I  sorter  wish  we ’d  hed  a  fairer  fight 
In  diff’runt  style,  t’  prove  aour  pints  of  view,  — 

Queer  fancies !  —  but  God  knows  I  wish  we  might ! 

Rev.  Walter  Walsh  responded  to  the  toast  “  King  George 
the  Fifth.”  In  the  course  of  his  remarks  he  expressed  satis¬ 
faction  in  the  progress  the  peace  cause  has  made  in  this  coun¬ 
try  as  shown  by  holding  great  peace  congresses  and  by  enlist¬ 
ing  in  it  the  interest  of  public  men. 

Both  Mr.  Walsh  and  the  following  speaker,  Rev.  Dr.  Philip 
S.  Moxom,  discussed  the  status  of  the  soldier  in  the  life  of 
to-day.  “  Why  is  he  a  soldier  ?  ”  asked  Dr.  Moxom,  consider¬ 
ing  the  question  from  a  broad  philosophical  standpoint.  “  Be¬ 
cause  the  people  and  the  powers  make  him  a  soldier.  It  is 
an  injury  to  the  peace  cause  to  fling  epithets  at  the  soldier. 
The  armies  of  Europe  to-day  are  made  up  of  men  who,  if  they 
had  their  choice,  would  be  in  the  ranks  of  industry  showing 
their  manhood  and  courage  and  grappling  with  the  problems  of 


136 

social  and  domestic  and  civil  life  rather  than  in  the  army. 
He  believed  that  the  presence  of  armies  in  this  age  is  due  to  a 
general  demand  for  virile  men,  but  that  the  time  had  come  when 
by  process  of  education  moral  forces  could  be  made  to  prevail 
over  the  forces  of  the  brute. 

Professor  Masujiro  Honda,  a  Japanese  who  is  connected  with 
the  Oriental  Information  Bureau  in  New  York  City,  spoke  on 
problems  in  American-Japanese  diplomatic  relations,  and  sug¬ 
gested  that  advocates  of  international  arbitration  propose  practi¬ 
cal  schemes  for  the  legal  settlement  of  international  disputes 
relating  to  questions  of  race  and  labor.  He  referred  to  the 
danger  to  international  relations  that  may  be  caused  by  reck¬ 
less  and  untrue  statements  in  the  press,  and  believed  that 
there  should  be  a  law  regulating  international  slander  and 
misrepresentation. 

A  telegram  was  read  from  Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt  congrat¬ 
ulating  the  Congress  upon  its  success  and  expressing  his  opin¬ 
ion  that  the  peace  cause  represents  the  greatest  moral  issue  of 
the  century. 

Mr.  Mead  spoke  of  the  moral  influence  of  the  United  States 
as  a  world  power,  illustrating  his  point  by  calling  attention 
to  what  the  United  States  has  done  for  the  development 
of  Japan.  Referring  to  the  Burritt  celebration,  with  its 
touching  spectacle  of  the  nationalities  in  procession,  he 
dwelt  upon  the  growth  of  the  Cosmopolitan  Clubs  in  Ameri¬ 
can  colleges  and  on  the  cosmopolitan  character  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  which  is  no  longer  made  up  largely 
of  English  blood,  but  has  its  millions  of  German,  Irish  and 
Jewish  extraction. 

Dr.  Trueblood  spoke  of  the  good  work  that  Professor 
Honda  has  done  in  interpreting  the  United  States  and  Japan 
to  each  other  and  in  helping  to  preserve  peaceful  relations 
between  them.  He  also  gave  a  sketch  of  the  peace  movement 
in  Japan.  Speaking  of  the  Burritt  celebration,  he  expressed 
the  opinion  that  its  influence  would  extend  not  only  through 
this  country,  but  would  go  abroad,  and  that  we  should  have 
peace  pageants  in  which  the  world  should  see  “  a  great  parade 
without  the  everlasting  rattle  of  arms  and  clash  of  sabres  and 
the  rush  of  armed  men  on  foot  and  on  horse. ”  He  thought 
that  the  Congress  had  come  up  to  the  best  standard  of  public 
speaking  of  the  peace  movement,  and  that  it  would  do  a  great 
deal  for  the  advancement  of  the  cause  that  the  friends  of 
peace  had  at  heart. 


The  Congress  closed  leaving  behind  it  a  sense  of  fellowship 
among  the  New  England  peace  workers  such  as  has  never 
before  been  felt  by  them,  and  that  promises  well  for  organized 
and  aggressive  work  in  the  future. 


APPENDIX. 


AN  OUTLINE  OF  THE  EARLY  PEACE  MOVEMENT 

IN  CONNECTICUT. 

Mabel  W.  S.  Call. 

Early  in  the  nineteenth  century  a  number  of  peace  societies 
sprang  up  in  America  at  about  the  same  time. 

Each  seemed  to  grow  spontaneously  and  to  be  unrelated  to 
most  of  the  others  ;  yet  careful  search  reveals  the  fact  that 
the  ground  was  prepared  in  much  the  same  way  for  all. 

The  world  was  wearied  with  the  long  wars  of  the  previous 
century,  and  idealists,  scattered  about  Christendom,  began  to 
question  the  need  of  war  between  civilized  nations. 

Then  came  tracts,  pamphlets  and  addresses  by  some  of  the 
more  daring  apostles  of  the  new  doctrine,  and  soon  little 
societies  of  like-minded  persons  were  formed,  and  the  seed  had 
begun  to  grow. 

Public  sentiment,  however,  was  not  altogether  ready  to  see 
the  reasonableness  of  the  dreams.  It  is  related  that  early  in 
the  century  the  Rev.  Dr.  Strong  of  Hartford  cautiously 
affirmed  in  his  study  that  he  was  “opposed  to  all  war.”  He 
could  not  preach  the  doctrine  boldly  then,  because  his  people 
refused  to  listen.*  When  Noah  Worcester,  in  1814,  wrote  his 
“Solemn  Review  of  the  Custom  of  War,”  no  publisher  could 
be  found  daring  enough  to  print  it.  Finally,  one  risked  doing 
so  on  condition  that  it  should  go  out  anonymously.  This  tract, 
however,  met  with  instant  and  wide  circulation.  It  was 
reprinted  many  times  in  many  places,  and  became  the  cause  of 
the  founding  of  many  peace  societies. 

By  the  year  1828  there  were  peace  societies  in  London,  in 
France,  in  Ireland,  Nova  Scotia,  Canada,  and  probably  over 
fifty  in  the  United  States. 

In  the  year  1828  Mr.  William  Ladd  of  Maine,  an  enthusi¬ 
astic  apostle  of  peace,  delivered  two  addresses  in  Hartford, 
Conn.  The  first,  on  January  10,  in  the  Central  Conference 
Room,  is  described  in  Mr.  William  Watson’s  diary  as  “  a  very 
eloquent  address  on  the  subject  of  universal  peace.”  It  was 
doubtless  at  this  first  meeting  that  Mr.  Watson,  afterward  so 
indefatigable  a  worker,  received  his  first  inspiration  to  labor 


*See  “Progress  of  Peace,”  American  Peace  Society,  Boston,  1844. 


139 


for  international  peace.  On  February  29  Mr.  Ladd  again 
addressed  an  audience  in  the  North  Conference  Room.  At 
this  meeting,  February  29,  1828,  enthusiasm  ran  so  high  that 
it  was  voted  to  form  a  peace  society  in  Hartford,  and  the 
meeting  adjourned  to  Monday,  March  10,  when  a  constitution 
was  reported  and  accepted.  This  .first  peace  society  in  Con¬ 
necticut  was  called  the  Hartford  County  Peace  Society,  auxil¬ 
iary  to  the  American  Peace  Society.  It  began  its  work  with  a 
membership  of  one  hundred  and  two.  The  officers  were 
Oliver  D.  Cooke,  Esq.,  president ;  Mr.  Henry  Peet,  vice- 
president  ;  and  Mr.  Henry  Grew,  secretary  and  treasurer. 
The  policy  adopted  from  the  outset  seems  to  have  been  one  of 
publicity  and  enlightenment.  This  was  accomplished  first  and 
foremost  by  means  of  tracts.  The  “  Solemn  Review  of  the 
Custom  of  War”  was  obtained  from  Noah  Worcester,  founder 
of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  reprinted  and  widely 
circulated  time  after  time.  An  interesting  collection  of  these 
reprints  is  still  to  be  found  in  the  library  of  the  Connecticut 
Historical  Society.  One  was  reprinted  by  Peter  B.  Gleason  & 
Co.,  1815.  Again  it  was  published  by  Philemon  Canfield  in 
Hartford  in  1829. 

The  other  means  of  reaching  the  people  was  by  the  pulpit, 
both  at  regular  services  and  at  annual  meetings  addressed  by 
ministers. 

At  the  first  annual  meeting,  March  18,  1829,  the  address 
was  made  by  Joel  H.  Linsley  at  the  Central  Meeting  House, 
and  the  sermon  was  afterward  published  and  widely  circulated. 
The  man  who  above  all  others  was  responsible  for  the  wide  cir¬ 
culation  of  the  pamphlets  was  William  Watson,  the  general 
agent  of  the  society.  He  made  his  store  on  Main  Street  the 
repository  for  all  tracts  and  publications  relative  to  the  peace 
movement,  and  was  indefatigable  in  his  efforts  in  scattered 
communities  about  the  State  to  arouse  and  sustain  interest. 
He  took  long  driving  trips  to  remote  spots,  scattering  pam¬ 
phlets,  making  addresses,  organizing  societies,  and  doing  all  in 
his  power  to  bring  the  cause  to  the  notice  of  men  and  women 
remote  from  the  large  centers.  He  managed  entirely  the 
fiscal  concerns  of  several  societies  in  Connecticut. 

In  May,  1831,  in  the  Conference  Room  of  the  Center 
Church,  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society  was  formed  with  sixty- 
four  members.  The  first  annual  meeting  was  held  in  New 
Haven  in  the  hope  of  forming  a  society  u  in  that  respectable 
and  influential  city.”  At  that  meeting  it  was  reported  that 


140 


nearly  two  thousand  pamphlets  had  been  circulated  during  the 
first  year.  The  officers  were:  John  Caldwell,  president; 
Thomas  H.  Gallaudet,  corresponding  secretary  ;  Henry  Grew, 
assistant  corresponding  secretary,  recording  secretary  and 
treasurer.  The  vice-presidents  were  :  P.  M.  Sherman,  Fairfield 
County ;  Thomas  Hubbard,  New  Haven  County ;  William  P. 
Cleaveland,  New  London  County ;  George  Benson,  Windham 
County;  Elisha  Stearns,  Tolland  County;  Jonathan  Brau, 
Hartford  County ;  William  Watson,  agent.  The  following 
year,  1833,  the  second  annual  report  claims  eight  county  soci¬ 
eties  for  the  State. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Society  was  published  with  this 
report,  and  the  following  extract  may  be  of  interest  in  showing 
the  breadth  of  aim  from  the  first : 

“Article  II.  The  object  of  this  Society  shall  be  the  promotion  of  per¬ 
manent  and  universal  peace,  by  printing  and  circulating  tracts  to  diffuse  informa¬ 
tion  tending  to  show  that  war  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity  and 
the  true  interests  of  mankind,  and  to  point  out  the  means  best  calculated  to 
maintain  permanent  and  universal  peace  upon  the  basis  of  Christian  principles. 
Its  labors  are  not  limited,  but  extend  to  the  whole  human  family.” 

This  second  annual  meeting  of  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society 
must  have  been  a  noteworthy  one,  for  in  the  Connecticut  Courant 
for  May  14  we  find  it  described  as  a  “  crowded  meeting  ”  in  the 
Center  Church  in  Hartford,  with  an  attendance  of  from  twelve 
hundred  to  fifteen  hundred  people.  The  secretary,  Rev.  T.  H. 
Gallaudet,  read  his  report,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hickock  of  Litch¬ 
field  delivered  an  address. 

Meanwhile  the  Hartford  County  Peace  Society  still  flourished, 
and  in  the  same  year,  1833,  revised  its  constitution,  making  it 
auxiliary  to  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society  instead  of  to  the 
American  Peace  Society  directly,  as  before.  The  officers  of 
the  Hartford  County  Peace  Society  that  year  were  :  president, 
Dr.  L.  Bacon  ;  vice-president,  Lynde  Olmsted  ;  recording  sec¬ 
retary  and  treasurer,  William  Watson  ;  corresponding  secretary, 
Dr.  S.  W.  Brown. 

In  June,  1834,  William  Watson  began  on  his  own  respon¬ 
sibility  the  publication  of  a  quarterly  magazine  called  the 
American  Advocate  of  Peace.  He  secured  as  editor  the  first 
year  the  Rev.  Caleb  Sprague  Henry,  junior  pastor  of  the  West 
Church,  and  submitted  the  paper  to  the  Connecticut  Peace 
Society  as  its  organ.  The  national  society,  observing  this 
publication,  found  it  executed  with  such  zeal,  taste  and  ability 
that  at  the  completion  of  the  first  year  it  adopted  the  Advocate 


as  its  own  organ,  merging  in  it  the  Calumet ,  once  the  Harbinger 
of  Peace. 

June  1 6,  1834,  there  appeared  in  the  Connecticut  Peace 
Society  report  a  paragraph  which  expresses  a  very  modern  hope 
and  point  of  view  :  “The  subject  of  a  supreme  tribunal  to  which 
national  disputes  may  be  referred  is  still  kept  in  view  by  the 
American  Peace  Society.  One  thousand  dollars  has  been 
offered  as  a  prize  for  the  best  essay  on  the  subject.” 

Another  important  meeting  was  held  on  Christmas  day,  1834, 
when  an  address  was  given  by  Rev.  Laurens  Hickock,  and  an 
original  ode  on  “  Peace  ”  by  Mrs.  Sigourney  was  sung  by  Mr. 
Wade.  This  meeting  was  held  at  the  Baptist  church,  and  the 
sum  of  $84.10  was  collected  to  extend  the  circulation  of  the 
Advocate  of  Peace. 

The  Connecticut  Peace  Society  in  its  annual  report  of  July 
20,  1835,  speaks  of  the  closing  year  as  one  peculiarly  momentous 
in  its  history,  first,  because  of  the  beginning  of  the  new  maga¬ 
zine  ;  second,  because  of  the  Advocate  s  adoption  by  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Society.  Over  twelve  thousand  copies  had  been  published 
and  circulated,  over  two  thousand  tracts  had  been  circulated, 
many  special  meetings  and  addresses  had  been  given  and  the 
movement  widely  advertised  by  Mr.  Watson  in  the  weekly 
papers.  That  was  the  year,  too,  when  Henry  Barnard,  2d,  was 
sent  to  London  to  represent  Connecticut  at  a  meeting  of  the 
“  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Permanent  and  Universal  Peace.” 

After  the  first  year  of  the  Advocate  of  Peace ,  Mr.  Francis 
Fellowes  became  the  editor  in  place  of  Mr.  Henry.  Mr.  Fel- 
lowes  took  up  his  new  duties  at  about  the  time  the  paper 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

Since  Mr.  Watson,  a  Hartford  man,  published  the  Quarterly , 
and  had  rallied  about  him  a  large  number  of  active  and  effective 
Hartford  men,  the  American  Society  found  it  desirable  to  make 
its  headquarters  in  Hartford  and  to  entrust  its  concerns  to  an 
able  set  of  executive  officers  on  the  spot.  This  probably  ex¬ 
plains  why  the  executive  committee  of  the  American  Peace 
Society  for  1836  has  so  large  a  preponderance  of  Hartford 
names.  There  were  Hon.  William  W.  Ellsworth,  Hartford  ; 
Rev.  T.  H.  Gallaudet,  Hartford  ;  Melvin  Copeland,  Hartford  ; 
William  Watson,  Esq.,  Hartford  ;  Rev.  G.  F.  Davis,  Philadel¬ 
phia  ;  Francis  Fellowes,  Hartford  ;  David  Watkinson,  Hartford; 
William  Ladd,  Esq.,  Maine,  general  agent ;  Rev.  T.  H.  Gal¬ 
laudet,  corresponding  secretary;  Francis  Fellowes,  recording 
secretary ;  William  Watson,  treasurer. 


'  So  for  two  years,  from  June,  1835,  to  June,  1 8 3 thme  were 
flourishing  in  Hartford  the  headquarters  of  three  peace  socie¬ 
ties,  the  Hartford  County  Peace  Society,  the  Connecticut  Peace 
Society  and  the  American  Peace  Society.  The  two  former 
held  their  meetings  often  at  the  homes  of  some  of  the  members  ; 
for  example,  at  Mr.  O.  D.  Cooke’s,  Mr.  John  Caldwell  s  or  Mr. 
Watson’s.  But  once  or  twice  a  year,  or  oftener,  large  public 
meetings  were  held  in  the  churches  or  “  conference  rooms. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  see  a  list  of  the  families  represented 
at  the  meetings  in  those  days.  In  the  newspaper  report  of  one 
meeting  we  find  mention  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hawes,  Hon.  William  W. 
Ellsworth,  Rev.  Henry  Stanwood,  Henry  Barnard,  Esq.,  Rev. 
Mr.  Hickock  of  Litchfield  and  Rev.  Mr.  Fitch.  At  other 
meetings  mention  is  made  of  A.  Kingsley,  D.  St.  John,  B. 
Hastings,  T.  H.  Gallaudet,  H.  Huntington,  L.  Olmsted,  L. 
Bacon,  Aaron  Colton,  D.  Watkinson,  Mr.  Van  Arsdalm,  Mrs. 
Sigourney,  Francis  Fellowes  and  many  others. 

Late  in  the  year  1836  Mr.  Watson,  the  mainspring  of  the 
publication  and  publicity  work  of  the  three  societies,  died,  and 
it  seemed  advisable  to  move  the  Advocate ,  and  with  it  the 
American  Peace  Society’s  headquarters,  to  Boston,  in  order  to 
continue  the  publication.  After  this  date  very  few  notices  of 
meetings  appear  in  the  papers  and  no  printed  reports  are  to  be 
found  in  the  Hartford  Historical  Library.  It  seems  improbable 
that,  with  so  many  earnest  and  enthusiastic  men  beside  Mr. 
Watson  engaged  in  the  propagation  of  the  peace  principles,  the 
two  Hartford  societies  could  have  ceased  at  once  upon  his  death. 
It  is  much  more  probable  that  at  first  the  meetings  and  annual 
address  were  held,  but  without  published  minutes.  Gradually, 
however,  as  abolition  became  the  talk  of  the  day,  the  doctrines 
of  peace  became  more  and  more  inopportune,  and  then  evidently 
the  formal  meetings  of  the  two  societies  in  Hartford  were 
dropped,  however  strongly  individual  members  may  have  felt 

regarding  the  desirability  of  peace. 

From  an  eloquent  circular  letter  by  Mr.  Ladd  in  the  first 
number  of  the  Harbinger  of  Peace>  May,  1828,  one  sees  how 
able  and  advanced  the  leaders  were  in  that  early  day.  Mr. 
Ladd  has  been  asked  if  the  leaders  of  the  movement  expect 
international  peace  in  their  own  day.  “  Perhaps  not,  he  says, 
“  still  it  is  not  impossible,  if  the  present  favorable  crisis  be 
seized,  and  no  war  should  break  out  to  blast  our  prospects  be¬ 
fore  our  principles  come  into  general  operation.”  The  war  did 
come  and  local  peace  societies  in  many  parts  of  the  country 


143 


sank  out  of  sight  ;  but  the  national  society  maintained  its  iden¬ 
tity  throughout.  Slowly  local  societies  have  again  sprung  into 
life.  The  second  and  present  Connecticut  Peace  Society  was 
organized  in  1906. 

In  these  latter  days  great  things  have  been  accomplished 
looking  toward  international  peace,  and  again  we  recall  a  pro¬ 
phetic  sentence  from  William  Ladd — a  sentence  in  the  same 
article  of  1828,  quoted  above:  “At  all  events,”  he  wrote,  “it 
is  our  duty  to  sow  the  seed  and  to  leave  it  to  God  to  appoint 
the  reapers.” 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE  IN  THE  PEACE  MOVEMENT. 

James  L.  Tryon. 

From  the  Manchester  Mirror ,  April  16,  I()IO. 

New  Hampshire  has  always  honored  the  peace  cause.  When 
the  first  board  of  directors  of  the  American  Peace  Society 
was  elected  in  1828,  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of  that 
Society,  three  of  its  members  were  New  Hampshire  men. 
These  were  the  Hon.  John  T.  Gilman  of  Exeter,  a  distinguished 
ex-governor  of  the  State,  the  Hon.  James  Sheafe  and  the  Hon. 
Nathaniel  A.  Haven  of  Portsmouth.  A  little  later  the  names 
of  the  Rev.  Israel  W.  Putnam  and  Benjamin  Abbott,  LL.  D., 
appeared  on  the  list  of  directors. 

One  of  the  first  life  members  of  the  American  Peace  Society 
was  the  Rev.  Nathaniel  Parker,  D.  D.,  of  Portsmouth.  An 
early  record  in  the  Harbinger  of  Peace ,  the  organ  of  the 
Society,  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  the  ladies  of  the 
church  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Putnam  of  Portsmouth  contributed  $30 
to  constitute  him  a  life  member.  Those  were  days  when  it  was 
customary  for  churches,  in  their  enthusiasm  for  the  peace  cause, 
to  connect  themselves  with  the  society  through  the  membership 
of  their  pastor. 

Peace  societies  were  formed  in  Portsmouth,  Concord  and 
Hanover.  The  board  report  of  the  American  Peace  Society 
contains  this  entry  about  the  interest  in  the  peace  cause  in 
Hanover.  It  says:  “The  Peace  Society  of  Concord  promises 
to  be  efficient,  but  to  the  Peace  Society  of  Dartmouth  College 
and  vicinity  we  look  with  peculiar  interest.  The  president  and 
all  the  officers  of  that  ancient  and  celebrated  college  are  officers 
or  members  of  the  Peace  Society,  and  most  of  the  students  are 
members,  and  appear  to  take  a  deep  interest  in  the  good  and 
great  cause.”  As  early  as  1831  the  faculty  of  Dartmouth 
College  was  offered  a  sum  of  money  to  be  put  on  interest  for 
the  purpose  of  creating  a  prize  for  essays  on  peace  and  war. 

Samuel  E.  Coues  of  Portsmouth  was  president  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Peace  Society  from  1841  to  1846,  and  since  the  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  Society  the  sons  and  daughters  of  New  Hampshire 
have  always  been  ready  to  support  its  work.  To-day  among 
the  representatives  who  are  connected  with  the  Society  are 


Prof.  Harlan  P.  Amen,  Prof.  James  F.  Colby  and  ex-President 
William  J.  Tucker  of  Dartmouth  ;  ex-Governor  N.  J.  Bachelder, 
master  of  the  National  Grange,  and  L.  H.  Pillsbury  of  Derry 
are  both  members,  Mr.  Pillsbury  being  a  vice-president.  Edwin 
D.  Mead,  also  a  vice-president  and  the  director  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  School  of  Peace,  which  has  just  been  founded  by  Mr. 
Ginn  in  Boston,  and  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead,  a  director  of  the 
American  Peace  Society,  author  of  “  A  Primer  of  the  Peace 
Movement  ”  and  “  Patriotism  and  the  New  Internationalism,” 
are  both  natives  of  New  Hampshire. 

The  secretary  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society,  Prof.  Samuel 
T.  Dutton,  was  originally  a  New  Hampshire  man.  New 
Hampshire  sent  five  delegates  to  the  New  York  National  Peace 
Congress  in  1907.  These  were  Governor  Bachelder,  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Chalmers,  D.  D.,  of  Manchester,  Herbert  D.  Foster 
and  Professor  Colby  of  Hanover  and  Charles  Osborne  of  North 
Weare.  Governor  Bachelder  took  part  in  the  memorable 
meeting  held  by  business  men  at  the  Hotel  Astor. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  write  a  history  of  the  peace  move¬ 
ment  without  paying  the  highest  tribute  to  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire.  It  was  at  Exeter,  May  10,  1778,  that  William 
Ladd  was  born,  who  founded  the  American  Peace  Society  that 
for  nearly  a  century  has  been  foremost  among  all  the  peace 
agencies  of  the  world  in  promoting  the  cause  of  arbitration. 
Mr.  Ladd  was  educated  at  the  academy  at  Exeter  and  at  Har¬ 
vard  college,  from  which,  at  the  age  of  nineteen,  he  graduated 
in  the  class  of  1797.  “He  attained,  on  the  green  side  of 
twenty,”  said  his  colleague,  Dr.  Beckwith,  “such  a  reputation 
for  scholarship  as  entitled  him  at  the  close  of  his  collegiate 
course  to  an  honorable  appointment  in  a  class  which  produced 
some  of  our  most  distinguished  men.” 

Mr.  Ladd  was  intended  by  his  parents  for  the  medical  pro¬ 
fession,  but  went  to  sea  as  a  common  sailor  in  a  vessel  owned 
by  his  father,  who  was  at  that  time  a  citizen  of  Portsmouth. 
He  visited  London  and  other  parts  of  Europe.  The  next  voyage 
he  was  mate  of  the  ship,  and  by  the  time  he  had  been  in  service 
eighteen  months,  at  the  age  of  twenty  years,  took  command 
of  one  of  the  largest  ships  that  ever  sailed  out  of  Portsmouth. 

After  following  the  sea  for  a  few  years,  Mr.  Ladd  went  to 
live  at  Minot,  Me.,  on  an  estate  that  belonged  to  his  father. 
Here  he  became  interested  in  agriculture,  in  literary  pursuits, 
and  in  the  religious  life  of  the  Congregational  church.  Some¬ 
body  said  of  him  that  “he  seemed  to  wish  to  make  everything 


146 


better  than  he  found  it  — not  only  in  the  moral  but  in  the 
material  world.”  Mr.  Ladd  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  Rev. 
Jesse  Appleton,  president  of  Bowdoin  College,  and  saw  him  in 
his  last  hours.  Dr.  Appleton,  speaking  of  the  signs  of  progress 
in  the  world,  gave  a  prominent  place  to  peace  societies.  1  is 
was  almost  the  first  time  that  Mr.  Ladd  had  ever  heard  of  them. 
At  first  he  treated  them  as  mere  day-dreams  of  the  times,  and 
the  incident  might  have  passed  without  significance  had  not 
he  come  upon  the  famous  peace  sermon  of  Dr.  Worcester, 
tt  The  Solemn  Review,”  which,  he  says,  “  riveted  my  attention 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  it  the  principal  object  of  my  life  to 
promote  the  cause  of  peace  on  earth  and  goodwill  toward  men. 

At  this  time,  1819,  Mr.  Ladd  was  forty-one  years  of  age. 
He  spent  most  of  the  next  nine  years  in  writing  essays  on 
peace  and  war  and  in  an  agitation  for  a  great  national  peace 
society  that  should  draw  to  itself  as  auxiliaries  all  the  other 
peace  societies  of  this  country,  of  which  there  were  many.  This 
association,  the  American  Peace  Society,  was  organized  in  New 
York  City,  May  8,  1828.  Mr.  Ladd  was  on  its  first  board  of 
directors,  became  its  agent  and  secretary,  and  later  its  presi¬ 
dent.  He  was  the  editor  of  the  Harbinger  of  Peace  and  the 
Calumet ,  the  first  important  peace  papers  published  in  this 
country  He  made  addresses  throughout  the  Eastern  States 
before  peace  societies  and  churches.  In  1837  he  was  licensed 
to  preach,  and  frequently  spoke  to  congregations.  His  presen¬ 
tation  of  the  peace  cause  was  strong  on  the  moral  and  purely 
Christian  side. 

He  wrote  many  letters  on  peace  and  arbitration  to  persons 
of  distinction  in  Europe.  But  the  great  work  for  which  he  is 
recognized  by  students  of  the  peace  movement  was  an  essay 
written  by  him  in  1840  on  a  court  and  congress  of  nations.  In 
this  essay  Mr.  Ladd  anticipated  the  work,  organization  and 
procedure  of  the  two  Hague  Confei  ences.  Anybody  who 
studies  his  program  for  a  world  congress  will  be  surprised  to 
see  how  nearly  it  resembles  the  actual  proceedings  of  the 
second  Hague  Conference. 

Speaking  of  his  remarkably  prophetic  work,  Mr.  Ladd 
said  :  “  My  claim  to  originality  in  this  production  rests  much 

on  the  thought  of  separating  the  subject  into  two  distinct 
parts,  namely  :  first,  a  congress  of  ambassadors  from  all  those 
Christian  and  civilized  nations  who  should  choose  to  send 
them,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  principles  of  international 
law  by  compact  and  agreement,  of  the  nature  of  a  mutual  treaty, 


147 


and  also  of  devising  and  promoting  plans  for  the  preservation 
of  peace,  and  meliorating  the  condition  of  man  ;  second,  a 
court  of  nations,  composed  of  the  most  able  civilians  in  the 
world,  to  arbitrate  or  judge  such  cases  as  should  be  brought 
before  it,  by  the  mutual  consent  of  two  or  more  contending 
nations,  thus  dividing  entirely  the  diplomatic  from  the  judicial 
functions.  I  consider  the  congress  as  the  legislature  and  the 
court  as  the  judiciary  in  the  government  of  nations,  leaving  the 
functions  of  the  executive  with  public  opinion,  ‘the  queen  of 
the  world.  This  division  I  have  never  seen  in  any  essay  or 
plan  for  a  congress  of  nations,  either  ancient  or  modern  ;  and  I 
believe  it  will  obviate  all  the  objections  which  have  been 
heretofore  made  to  such  a  plan.” 

Mr.  Ladd  spent  much  of  his  fortune  on  the  peace  cause,  and 
at  his  death,  on  April  9,  1841,  in  Portsmouth,  bequeathed 
several  thousand  dollars  to  be  spent  immediately  on  the  cause 
of  peace.  He  was  buried  at  Portsmouth,  where  a  monument 
was  erected  to  his  memory  by  the  American  Peace  Society. 
The  monument  bears  the  inscription,  “Blessed  are  the  peace¬ 
makers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God.”  This 
inscription  is  prophetic  when  considered  in  connection  with  the 
peace  of  Portsmouth,  a  peace  that  will  have  a  lasting  place  in 
the  annals  of  civilization  and  will  always  reflect  honor  on  the 
State  of  New  Hampshire,  that  welcomed  the  peace  commis¬ 
sioners  when  they  entered  upon  their  beneficent  task.  This 
settlement  stands  for  the  success  of  mediation,  which  is  one  of 
the  means  for  the  promotion  of  peace  established  by  the  Hague 
Conferences,  the  product  of  a  world  sentiment  shaped  by  the 
constructive  genius  of  Mr.  Ladd. 


COMMITTEES  OF  THE  CONGRESS. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Principal  Arthur  Deerin  Call,  Chairman,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Rodney  W.  Roundy,  Executive  Secretary,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  Edward  Prior,  Treasurer,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  John  Coleman  Adams,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Charles  H.  Adler,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Elizabeth  D.  Bacon,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Frank  A.  Brackett,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Hon.  George  B.  Chandler,  Rocky  Hill,  Conn. 

J.  Gilbert  Calhoun,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Solon  P.  Davis,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  Welles  Gross,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Plon.  Edward  W.  Hooker,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Herbert  A.  Jump,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Hon.  George  M.  Landers,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

President  Flavel  S.  Luther,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Tudge  L.  P.  Waldo  Marvin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  E.  Mitchell,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Prof.  Edwin  Knox  Mitchell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  E.  V.  Mitchell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Rockwell  Harmon  Potter,  D.D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Edward  M.  Roszelle,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Milton  Simon,  Hartford,  Conn. 

B.  Norman  Strong,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  J.  T.  Sunderland,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

George  S.  Talcott,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Col.  Charles  E.  Thompson,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Boston,  Mass. 

Mabel  W.  Wainwright,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Thomas  S.  Weaver,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Archibald  A.  Welch,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Samuel  H.  Williams,  Glastonbury,  Conn. 

GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

Henry  Wade  Rogers,  Chairman,  Dean  of  the  Yale  Law  School. 

Dr.  Alva  E.  Abrams,  Plartford,  Conn. 

Max  Adler,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Hon.  Amos  L.  Allen,  Congressman  from  Maine. 

Principal  Harlan  P.  Amen,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H. 

Ex-Governor  N.  J.  Bachelder,  Concord,  N.  H. 

Mrs.  Hannah  J.  Bailey,  Superintendent  of  Department  of  Peace  and  Arbitration, 
National  Woman’s  Christian  Temperance  Union,  Winthrop  Center,  Me. 
Prof.  William  B.  Bailey,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Rev.  James  L.  Barton,  D.D.,  Secretary  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners 
for  Foreign  Missions,  Boston,  Mass. 

Hon.  Edward  B.  Bennett,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Henry  Blanchard,  D.  D.,  Portland,  Me. 

Samuel  Bowles,  Editor  Springfield  Republican,  Springfield,  Mass. 

Rt.  Rev.  Chauncey  B.  Brewster,  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Dr.  Wm.  N.  Bryant,  Ludlow,  Vt. 

Hon.  Morgan  G.  Bulkeley,  Senator  from  Connecticut. 


149 


President  Kenyon  L.  Butterfield,  Massachusetts  Agricultural  College,  Amherst, 
Mass. 

Walter  Camp,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Prof.  David  N.  Camp,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Hon.  Samuel  B.  Capen,  President  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions,  Boston,  Mass. 

Ex-Governor  Abiram  Chamberlain,  Meriden,  Conn. 

President  George  C.  Chase,  Bates  College,  Lewiston,  Me. 

Charles  Hopkins  Clark,  Editor  Hartford,  Courant ,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Francis  E.  Clark,  D.  D.,  President  United  Society  of  Christian  Endeavor, 
Boston,  Mass. 

Edward  H.  Clement,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Prof.  James  F.  Colby,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H. 

George  W.  Coleman,  Boston,  Mass. 

Wm.  H.  Corbin,  Tax  Commissioner  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Hon.  Winthrop  Murray  Crane,  Senator  from  Massachusetts. 

Richard  H.  Dana,  Boston,  Mass. 

Edward  H.  Davison,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Rev.  Robert  Denison,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Rev.  Elmer  A.  Dew,  D.  D.,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Hon.  William  P.  Dillingham,  Senator  from  Vermont. 

Rev.  Charles  A.  Dinsmore,  D.  D.,  Waterbury,  Conn. 

Rev.  Charles  F.  Dole,  Jamaica  Plain,  Mass. 

Charles  J.  Donahue,  President  of  the  Connecticut  Federation  of  Labor,  New 
Haven,  Conn. 

Hon.  Henry  C.  Dwight,  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Anna  B.  Eckstein,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rabbi  Meyer  Elkin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Hon.  E.  Hart  Fenn,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

Prof.  Irving  Fisher,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Everett  O.  Fisk,  Fisk  Teachers’  Agencies,  Boston,  Mass. 

Hon.  Allen  M.  Fletcher,  Proctorsville,  Vt. 

Mrs.  J.  Malcolm  Forbes,  Milton,  Mass. 

Hon.  David  J.  Foster,  Congressman  from  Vermont. 

Rev.  Paul  Revere  Frothingham,  Boston,  Mass. 

Dr.  Horace  S.  Fuller,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Edwin  Ginn,  Boston,  Mass. 

Hon.  Charles  A.  Goodwin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  James  Goodwin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Wilbur  F.  Gordy,  Superintendent  of  Schools,  Springfield,  Mass. 

Hon.  Charles  E.  Gross,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Prof.  Edwin  A.  Grosvenor,  Amherst  College,  Amherst,  Mass. 

Rev.  Ernest  Graham  Guthrie,  Burlington,  Vt. 

Hon.  Clarence  Hale,  Judge  United  States  District  Court,  Portland,  Me. 

President  Frederick  W.  Hamilton,  Tufts  College,  Mass. 

President  George  Harris,  Amherst  College,  Amherst,  Mass. 

Rev.  Samuel  Hart,  D.D.,  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Wm.  H.  Hart,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Rev.  A.  W.  Hazen,  D.  D.,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Hon.  William  F.  Henney,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Hon.  E.  Stevens  Henry,  Representative  from  Connecticut. 

Hon.  Edwin  W.  Higgins,  Representative  from  Connecticut. 

Mrs.  Appleton  R.  Hillyer,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Dean  George  Hodges,  Cambridge  Theological  School,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

John  M.  Holcombe,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Dr.  Henry  D.  Holton,  Secretary  State  Board  of  Health,  Brattleboro,  Vt. 

Dr.  Edward  Beecher  Hooker,  Hartford,  Conn. 

President  William  E.  Huntington,  Boston  University,  Boston,  Mass. 

Frederick  H.  Jackson,  Providence,  R.  I. 


150 

Prof.  Melancthon  W.  Jacobus,  Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  Hartford,  Conn. 
*Prof.  William  James,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Frank  S.  Kellogg,  Collector  of  the  Port,  Hartford,  Conn.  . 

Mrs.  Sara  T.  Kinney,  President  of  the  Connecticut  Indian  Association,  Harttorct, 

Conn. 

Hon.  George  M.  Landers,  ex-Mayor  of  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Hon.  Everett  J.  Lake,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rt.  Rev.  William  Lawrence,  Bishop  of  Massachusetts,  Boston,  Mass. 

Wilson  Howard  Lee,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Hon.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  Senator  from  Massachusetts. 

President  Richard  C.  Maclaurin,  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  Boston, 
Mass. 

Rev.  Oscar  E.  Maurer,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Hon.  Samuel  W.  McCall,  Representative  from  Massachusetts. 

Ex-Governor  George  P.  McLean,  Simsbury,  Conn. 

Gen.  Nelson  A.  Miles,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Charles  E.  Mitchell,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Emily  M.  Morgan,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Dr.  William  A.  Mowry,  Hyde  Park,  Mass. 

Hon.  Carroll  S.  Page,  Senator  from  Vermont. 

*Hon.  Robert  Treat  Paine,  President  American  Peace  Society,  Boston,  Mass. 

Dr.  Endicott  Peabody,  Head  Master,  Groton  School,  Groton,  Mass. 

Judge  Epaphroditus  Peck,  Bristol,  Conn. 

Hon.  Charles  E.  Perkins,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Hon.  Andrew  J.  Peters,  Congressman  from  Massachusetts. 

Hon.  Frank  Plumley,  Congressman  from  Vermont. 

Judge  Samuel  O.  Prentice,  Hartford,  Conn. 

E.  G.  Preston,  Boston,  Mass. 

Hon.  Walter  E.  Ranger,  Commissioner  of  Public  Schools,  Providence,  R.  L 
Prof.  William  North  Rice,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Dr.  Maurice  H.  Richardson,  Boston,  Mass. 

Ex-Governor  Henry  Roberts,  Hartford,  Conn.  . 

Dr.  Francis  H.  Rowley,  President  of  the  Massachusetts  Society  for  the  Prevention 
of  Cruelty  to  Animals,  Boston,  Mass. 

Hon.  Talcott  H.  Russell,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Helen  H.  Seabury,  New  Bedford,  Mass. 

Mary  B.  Seabury,  New  Bedford,  Mass. 

Rev.  George  T.  Smart,  Newton  Highlands,  Mass. 

Principal  Edward  H.  Smiley,  Hartford  High  School,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Hon.  Ernest  Walker  Smith,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Hon.  Herbert  Knox  Smith,  Bureau  of  Corporations,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Solomon  Sontheimer,  President  of  the  Hartford  Central  Labor  Union,  Hartford, 

Conn. 

Hon.  Nathaniel  D.  Sperry,  Representative  from  Connecticut. 

Elisha  J.  Steele,  Torrington,  Conn. 

Ex-Governor  William  W.  Stickney,  Ludlow,  Vt. 

Anson  Phelps  Stokes,  Jr.,  Secretary  of  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn 
-  Rev.  Michael  A.  Sullivan,  Church  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  Hartford, 

Conn. 

George  H.  Sutton,  Springfield,  Mass. 

Hon.  Albert  N.  Swain,  Bellows  Falls,  Vt. 

Hon.  John  Q.  Tilson,  Representative  from  Connecticut. 

Rev.  James  L.  Tryon,  Boston,  Mass. 

Ex-Governor  George  H.  Utter,  Westerly,  R.  I. 

Prof.  Williston  Walker,  Yale  Divinity  School,  New  Haven,  Conn, 

Hon.  Charles  G.  Washburn,  Representative  from  Massachusetts. 

Rev.  Charles  W.  Wenclte,  Boston,  Mass. 


*  Since  deceased. 


Meigs  H.  Whaples,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Kate  Douglas  Wiggin,  Boston,  Mass. 

George  Wigglesworth,  Boston,  Mass. 

Mrs.  Samuel  H.  Williams,  Glastonbury,  Conn. 

Dr.  A.  E.  Winship,  Journal  of  Education,  Boston,  Mass. 

Ex-Governor  Rollin  S.  Woodruff,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

President  Mary  E.  Woolley,  Mt.  Holyoke  College,  South  Hadley,  Mass. 
Prof.  Theodore  S.  Woolsey,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 


PUBLICITY  COMMITTEE, 

Louis  H.  Parkhurst,  Chairman 
Charles  W.  Burpee, 

Thomas  J.  Kelly, 

James  L.  Tryon,  Boston,  Mass. 


HARTFORD  PROGRAM  COMMITTEE, 

Arthur  D.  Call,  Chairman. 

Prof.  Gustave  A.  Kleene. 

Prof.  Edwin  Knox  Mitchell. 

Rev.  J.  T.  Sunderland,  D.  D. 

Thomas  S.  Weaver. 


COMMITTEE  ON  INVITATIONS, 

Hon.  George  B.  Chandler,  Chairman,  Rocky  Hill,  Conn. 
Hon.  John  C.  Brinsmade,  Washington,  Conn. 

Hon.  Charles  W.  Dean,  Bridgeport,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Hattie  B.  Gates,  Willimantic,  Conn. 

Charles  D.  Hine,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Arthur  R.  Kimball,  Waterbury,  Conn. 

Dr.  George  H.  Knight,  Lakeville,  Conn. 

Schuyler  Merritt,  Bridgeport,  Conn. 

Hon.  Norris  C.  Osborn,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Ex-President  B.  P.  Raymond,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Rev.  William  F.  Stearns,  Norfolk,  Conn. 

Hon.  Wilbur  F.  Tomlinson,  Danbury,  Conn. 


HARTFORD  FINANCE  COMMITTEE, 


Jonathan  Bunce. 
Atwood  Collins. 
Frank  C.  Sumner. 
Philo  P.  Bennett. 
Henry  E.  Rees. 
Frank  P.  Furlong. 
William  G.  Baxter. 
Edward  F.  Harrison. 
Gail  B.  Munsill. 
Robert  H.  Schutz. 


L.  P.  Waldo  Marvin,  Chairman. 
Charles  Edward  Prior,  Treasurer. 
Rodney  W.  Roundy,  Secretary. 


Rev.  Rockwell  Harmon  Potter. 


Morgan  B.  Brainard. 
Stanley  W.  Edwards. 
Frank  G.  Mellen. 
Thomas  W.  Russell. 
Joseph  C.  Gorton. 
Richard  M.  Northrop. 
William  P.  Conklin. 
Shiras  Morris. 
Winslow  Russell. 
Heywood  H.  Whaples. 


152 


NEW  BRITAIN  OFFICERS  AND  COMMITTEES. 


Honorary 

William  E.  Atwood. 

Dr.  J.  J.  Andzulatis. 

Rev.  Lucyan  Bojnowski. 

Rev.  Charles  Coppens. 

Hon.  Philip  Corbin. 

Hon.  David  N.  Camp. 

Judge  B.  F.  Gaffney. 

Rev.  J.  E.  Klingberg. 

Rev.  H.  W.  Maier. 

Rev.  Rom 


Chairmen. 

Rev.  Dr.  R.  F.  Moore. 
Hon.  Charles  E.  Mitchell. 
Rev.  Dr.  S.  G.  Ohman. 
Rev.  G.  E.  Pihl. 

Frederick  G.  Platt. 

Judge  James  Roche. 
Edward  N.  Stanley. 
George  W.  Traut. 

Rev.  John  T.  Winters, 
in  Zalitacz. 


General  Committee  of  Seventy. 


A.  H.  Abbe. 

Michael  Kupecz. 

W.  C.  Akers. 

Rev.  J.  E.  Klingberg. 

John  A.  Anderson. 

Hon.  G.  M.  Landers. 

Rev.  M.  S.  Anderson. 

Edward  F.  Laubin. 

Cornelius  Andrews. 

M.  C.  Lewitt. 

Dr.  J.  J.  Andzulatis. 

A.  N.  Lewis. 

Geo.  C.  Atwell. 

Charles  E.  Mitchell. 

William  E.  Atwood. 

Rev.  H.  W.  Maier. 

Rev.  Lucyan  Bojnowski. 

Rev.  R.  F.  Moore. 

Rev.  J.  H.  Bell. 

E.  Allen  Moore. 

Rev.  H.  I.  Bodley. 

Martin  Nalbandra. 

Rev.  T.  E.  Brown. 

John  Northend. 

Dr.  H.  T.  Bray. 

Rev.  Dr.  S.  G.  Ohman. 

W.  W.  Bullen. 

John  O’Neill. 

T.  H.  Brady. 

L.  Hoyt  Pease. 

F.  S.  Chamberlain. 

Frank  J.  Porter. 

David  N.  Camp. 

F.  G.  Platt. 

Hon.  Philip  Corbin. 

Rev.  G.  E.  Pihl. 

Judge  J.  E.  Cooper. 

Charles  J.  Parker. 

Anton  Cieszynski. 

Loren  D.  Penfield. 

John  F.  Di  Nonni. 

Denis  Riordan. 

E.  H.  Davison. 

Judge  James  Roche. 

James  L.  Doyle. 

G.  Ernest  Root. 

A.  F.  Eichstaedt. 

Andrew  J.  Sloper. 

Carl  Ebbesen. 

Peter  Suzio. 

Judge  B.  F.  Gaffnev. 

Charles  F.  Smith. 

W.  H.  Gladden. 

Y.  J.  Stearns. 

William  H.  Hart. 

Edward  N.  Stanley. 

Stanley  H.  Holmes. 

Alex.  W.  Stanley. 

Dr.  J.  Hubert. 

George  S.  Talcott. 

Walter  H.  Hart. 

George  W.  Traut. 

H.  D.  Humphrey. 

Rev.  J.  T.  Winters. 

Rev.  H.  A.  Jump. 

Marcus  White. 

Baba  Jones. 

J.  Herbert  Wilson. 

Col.  C.  M.  Jarvis. 

Rev.  Roman  Zalitacz. 

Executive  Committee  of  New  Britain. 

Hon.  Geo.  M.  Landers,  President. 

Hon.  Charles  E.  Mitchell,  First  Vice-President. 

William  H.  Hart,  Second  Vice-President. 

Rev.  Herbert  A.  Jump,  Third  Vice-President. 

B.  B.  Bassette,  Secretary. 


153 


George  S.  Talcott,  Chairman  Program  Committee. 

George  C.  Atwell,  Chairman  Publicity  Committee. 

J.  S.  North,  Chairman  Finance  Committee. 

B.  B.  Bassette,  Chairman  Hospitality  and  Reception  Committee. 

W.  F.  Brooks,  Chairman  Decoration  Committee. 

Stanley  H.  Holmes,  Chairman  School  Participation  Committee. 

W.  L.  Hatch,  Chairman  Transportation  Committee. 

E.  F.  Laubin,  Chairman  Music  Committee. 

Walter  Hart,  Chairman  Invitation  Committee. 

Col.  A.  L.  Thompson,  Marshal  of  Parade. 

Thomas  W.  O’Connor,  Commander  of  Floats. 

Marcus  White,  Chairman  Burritt  Monument  Committee. 

F.  J.  Porter,  President  Business  Men’s  Association. 

John  O’Neil,  Editor  New  Britain  Herald. 

Burritt  Auxiliary. 

Mrs.  B.  B.  Bassette,  President. 

Mrs.  Annie  S.  Churchill,  Secretary. 

Mrs.  B.  B.  Bassette,  Chairman  International  Tribute  Committee. 

Mrs.  C.  B.  Stanley,  Chairman  Supper  Committee  for  Center  Church. 

Mrs.  C.  A.  Schmidt,  Chairman  Supper  Committee  for  South  Church. 

Mrs.  Fred  Goodrich,  Chairman  Supper  Committee  for  Methodist  Church. 
Miss  Mary  Foster,  Chairman  Equipment  Committee. 

Mrs.  Stanley  H.  Holmes,  Chairman  High  School  Committee. 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  CONGRESS. 

Those  marked  (*)  did  not  register  at  Center  Church  House,  but  were  enrolled  previously. 

*Alva  E.  Abrams,  M.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn.  * 

Rev.  John  Coleman  Adams,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Jessie  Adler,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Max  Adler,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Charles  A.  Allen,  Hartford,  Conn. 

F.  W.  Allis,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  M.  Allison,  Middlefield,  Conn. 

Adeline  Bartlett  Allyn,  East  Windsor,  Conn. 

*  Frederick  Alpiswald,  Rockville,  Conn. 

*Samuel  M.  Alvord,  Hartford,  Conn. 

^Charles  L.  Ames,  Hartford,  Conn. 

^Cornelius  Andrews,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*George  O.  Andrews,  Rocky  Hill,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews,  Boston,  Mass. 

*James  P.  Andrews,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Alexander  Angus,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*  William  Angus,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Robert  Fleming  Arnott,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

*E.  P.  Arvine,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Geo.  C.  Atwell,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Mary  K.  Atwood,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Edwin  P.  Augur,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Mr.  J.  G.  Bacon,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Elizabeth  D.  Bacon,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Carrie  E.  Baglin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  E.  Baglin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  E.  A.  Bailey,  Middletown,  Conn. 

*Mrs.  Ludlow  Barker,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Ludlow  Barker,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Rev.  Otis  W.  Barker,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Thaddeus  W.  Barker,  East  Sullivan,  N.  H. 

Thaddeus  Barker,  East  Sullivan,  N.  H. 

Rev.  Austin  B.  Bassett,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Buell  B.  Bassette,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*Wm.  G.  Baxter,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  William  G.  Baxter,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  E.  Beals,  Evanston,  Ill. 

Herbert  E.  Belden,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Mrs.  A.  N.  Belding,  Rockville,  Conn. 

Leverett  Belknap,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Sigmund  Bernstein,  Meriden,  Conn. 


155 


Frank  E.  Bigelow,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*C.  E.  Billings,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  S.  Wolcott  Bissell,  East  Windsor,  Conn. 
*Rev.  Quincy  Blakely,  Farmington,  Conn. 
^Frederick  Bliss,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Rev.  Ernest  C.  Bloomquist,  Portland,  Conn. 
*Mrs.  I.  P.  Blumenthal,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Mrs.  C.  H.  Bolles,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 
*Mrs.  E.  L.  Bolles,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 
Robert  D.  Bone,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Henry  Bowen,  Jr.,  Providence,  R.  I. 

Frank  A.  Brackett,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  F.  A.  Brackett,  Hartford,  Conn. 

William  Bragg,  Bloomfield,  Conn. 

Harvey  B.  Brainard,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Walter  B.  Briggs,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Walter  B.  Briggs,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 
John  C.  Brinsmade,  Washington,  Conn. 

Miss  Helen  E.  Brown,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Hugh  Elmer  Brown,  Hartford,  Conn. 
*Rev.  Robert  E.  Brown,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Rev.  T.  Edwin  Brown,  New  Britain,  Conn. 
*W.  N.  Bryant,  M.  D.,  Ludlow,  Vt. 

Samuel  Buffum,  North  Berwick,  Me. 

Mrs.  Samuel  Buffum,  North  Berwick,  Me. 
David  Buffum,  Prudence  Island,  R.  I. 

Miss  Margaret  Burns,  Meriden,  Conn. 

Edward  J.  Burns,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Rev.  S.  C.  Bushnell,  Arlington,  Mass. 

^George  Calder,  Hartford,  Conn. 

-^William  P.  Calder,  Hartford,  Conn. 

A.  FI.  Campbell,  Windsor,  Conn. 

^Albert  E.  Cary,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  N.  A.  Castle,  Plainville,  Conn. 

*J.  Gilbert  Calhoun,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Arthur  Deerin  Call,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Mrs.  Arthur  Deerin  Call,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Elizabeth  J.  Cairns,  Hartford,  Conn. 

David  N.  Camp,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

John  Spencer  Camp,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Walter  Camp,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Mary  Caswell,  Wellesley,  Mass. 

Ellen  L.  Chaffee,  East  Hartford,  Conn. 
Frederick  S.  Chamberlain,  Middlebury,  Conn. 
Loyed  E.  Chamberlain,  Brockton,  Mass. 

George  P.  Chandler,  Rocky  Hill,  Conn. 

Gilbert  Chapin,  Hartford,  Conn. 


156 


Cora  Chase,  Danielson,  Conn. 

^President  George  C.  Chase,  Lewiston,  Me. 
*Louis  R.  Cheney,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Walstein  R.  Chester,  Boston,  Mass. 

Mrs.  Annie  S.  Churchill,  New  Britain,  Conn. 
Antoni  Cieszynski,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*Abel  S.  Clark,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  D.  J.  Clark,  East  Haven,  Conn. 

Rev.  George  L.  Clark,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 
Russell  Porter  Clark,  Stamford,  Conn. 

^Sidney  W.  Clark,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Susan  T.  Clark,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Sarah  Taber  Coffin,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  Joseph  S.  Cogswell,  Dummerston,  Vt. 
*Atwood  Collins,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Mary  F.  Collins,  Hartford,  Conn, 
lames  Balfour  Conner,  Bloomfield,  Conn. 

J.  B.  Comstock,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*John  H.  Corcoran,  Cambridge,  Mass. 
^Timothy  C.  Craig,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

Daniel  G.  Crandon,  Boston,  Mass. 

Mrs.  Alta  Starr  Cressy,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Thomas  J.  Cummings,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Thomas  E.  Davies,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Solon  P.  Davis,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Edwin  S.  Dewing,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  L.  H.  Dewing,  Hartford,  Conn. 

W.  H.  DeWolfe,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Rev.  Roger  A.  Dunlap,  Windsor  Locks,  Conn. 
James  J.  Dunn,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Anna  Sturges  Duryea,  Boston,  Mass. 
George  Matthew  Dutcher,  Middletown,  Conn. 
C.  E.  Ebbesen,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

A.  F.  Eichstaedt,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Charles  S.  Ensign,  Newton,  Mass. 

Rev.  Spencer  E.  Evans,  Terryville,  Conn. 

M.  L.  Farrington,  Windsor  Locks,  Conn. 

Rev.  Francis  A.  Fate,  Glastonbury,  Conn. 
*Rev.  William  G.  Fennell,  Hartford,  Conn. 
^Charles  H.  Field,  Hartford,  Conn. 

George  W.  Finlay,  South  Manchester,  Conn. 
Annie  Fisher,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Prof.  Irving  Fisher,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Rev.  Theo.  A.  Fisher,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
*Williamina  P.  Fleming,  Cambridge,  Mass 
Herman  P.  Fisher,  Westboro,  Mass. 

*Allen  M.  Fletcher,  Proctorsville,  Vt. 


i57 


*Lilly  G.  Foote,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*F.  H.  Forbes,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Edmund  E.  Freeman,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 
Horace  S.  Fuller,  M.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  D.  W.  Gammell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  Gay,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Richard  L.  Gay,  Boston,  Mass. 

*Prof.  Curtis  M.  Geer,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 
^Everett  S.  Geer,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Mrs.  Kate  L.  Germond,  New  Britain,  Conn. 
Rev.  O.  P.  Gifford,  Brookline,  Mass. 

Prof.  Arthur  L.  Gillett,  Hartford,  Conn. 

William  H.  Gladden,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*Curtis  P.  Gladding,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  W.  H.  Goddard,  Wallingford,  Conn. 

*Louis  S.  Goldschmidt,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Mrs.  L.  A.  Goldschmidt,  Hartford,  Conn. 
*Henry  Goldstein,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  G.  F.  Goodenough,  Northfield,  Conn. 
Arthur  B.  Goodrich,  Glastonbury,  Conn. 

*Rev.  Francis  Goodwin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*James  J.  Goodwin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Fayette  Goss,  Willimantic,  Conn. 

*Merwin  Gray,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Edwin  S.  Greeley,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

David  I.  Green,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*James  W.  Green,  Hartford,  Conn. 

F.  A.  Griswold,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

^Charles  E.  Gross,  Flartford,  Conn. 

Benjamin  L.  Haas,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  R.  Hall,  Rockville,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Melvin  H.  Hapgood,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Alexander  Harbison,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Frederick  Harrison,  Southington,  Conn. 

*Mrs.  Josephine  G.  Hart,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 
Rev.  Samuel  Hart,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Wm.  H.  Hart,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Wm.  H.  Hart,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Rev.  R.  G.  Hartley,  Willimantic,  Conn. 

W.  S.  Harvey,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

*Mrs.  Julia  I.  Havemeyer,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  A.  J.  Hawks,  Ware,  Mass. 

Mrs.  Geo.  W.  Haywood,  Meriden,  Conn. 
*Bertha  Hazard,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  A.  W.  Hazen,  Middletown,  Conn. 

John  Edward  Heaton,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

E.  Stevens  Henry,  Washington,  D.  C. 


158 


*Hon.  E.  W.  Higgins,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Mrs.  A.  R.  Hillyer,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Horace  G.  Hoadley,  Waterbury,  Conn. 

Francis  Hobart,  Cambridge,  Vt. 

Rev.  Thomas  M.  Hodgdon,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 
John  M.  Holcombe,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  John  M.  Holcombe,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Marguerite  Holcombe,  Hartford,  Conn. 

John  H.  Holmes,  West  Haven,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Mary  F.  W.  Homer,  Providence,  R.  I. 
♦Edward  W.  Hooker,  Hartford,  Conn. 

♦Rev.  Roy  M.  Houghton,  Brattleboro,  Vt. 

♦Daniel  Howard,  Windsor  Locks,  Conn. 

♦Daniel  R.  Howe,  Hartford,  Conn. 

♦John  T.  Hubbard,  Litchfield,  Conn. 

*Newman  Hungerford,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  John  T.  Huntington,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Melancthon  W.  Jacobus,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Mrs.  A.  B.  Jenkins,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Baba  Jones,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Frank  O.  Jones,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Frank  O.  Jones,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Marion  H.  Jones,  Staff ordsville,  Conn. 

♦J.  F.  Johnstone,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Herbert  A.  Jump,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

♦Rev.  John  D.  Kennedy,  Danbury,  Conn. 
Frederick  A.  King,  Thompsonville,  Conn. 

Andrew  Kingsbury,  Rockville,  Conn. 

Mabel  H.  Kingsbury,  Newton  Centre,  Mass. 

J.  Stuart  Kirkham,  Springfield,  Mass. 

Mrs.  J.  Stuart  Kirkham,  Springfield,  Mass. 

John  S.  Kirkham,  Newington,  Conn. 

♦Chas.  R.  Knapp,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Olga  Kullgren,  Hartford,  Conn. 

♦Everett  J.  Lake,  Hartford,  Conn. 

♦ Walter  E.  Lanphear,  Mansfield  Center,  Conn. 

W.  E.  Latham,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Lena  P.  Lapidus,  Hartford,  Conn. 

U.  J.  Ledoux,  Dorchester,  Mass. 

Mrs.  I.  S.  Lee,  Lynn, ‘Mass. 

♦William  H.  Lee,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

John  B.  Lennon,  Bloomington,  Ill. 

Mrs.  H.  P.  Levy,  Hartford,  Conn. 

♦A.  N.  Lewis,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Edwin  N.  Lewis,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Herman  S.  Lovejoy,  Branford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Henry  W.  Maier,  New  Britain,  Conn. 


i59 


Mary  Marchant,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Harry  Brooks  Marsh,  Rockville,  Conn. 

*Edwin  E.  Marvin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

L.  P.  Waldo  Marvin,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*M.  Clinton  Mason,  Rockville,  Conn. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  McKinley,  Rockville,  Conn. 
John  B.  McKnight,  Ellington,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Charles  M.  Mead,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Prof.  Charles  M.  Mead,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Edwin  D.  Mead,  Boston,  Mass. 

Lucia  Ames  Mead,  Boston,  Mass. 

*J.  B.  Merwin,  Middlefield,  Conn. 

*Rev.  H.  C.  Meserve,  Danbury,  Conn. 

Mrs.  B.  N.  B.  Miller,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Chas.  Elliott  Mitchell,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Prof.  Edwin  Knox  Mitchell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

H.  R.  Monteith,  Storrs,  Conn. 

*E.  A.  Moore,  Newr  Britain,  Conn. 

^Edward  E.  Moseley,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Wm.  A.  Mowry,  Hyde  Park,  Mass. 

Rev.  Philip  S.  Moxom,  Springfield,  Mass. 

*Gail  B.  Munsill,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Roscoe  Nelson,  Windsor,  Conn. 

^Edward  E.  Newell,  Bristol,  Conn. 

*Milo  Leon  Norton,  Bristol,  Conn. 

James  C.  Nicholson,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  G.  H.  Noxon,  Darien,  Conn. 

P.  P.  O’Reilly,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Ellen  E.  Osgood,  East  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Edward  N.  Packard,  Stratford,  Conn. 
Charles  J.  Parker,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*George  A.  Parker,  Hartford,  Conn. 

^Herbert  Collins  Parsons,  Greenfield,  Mass. 
Francis  Parsons,  Hartford,  Conn. 

L.  H.  Pease,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*Judge  Epaphroditus  Peck,  Bristol,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Elisha  H.  Pember,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Frederick  L.  Perry,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
^Antoinette  R.  Phelps,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Elizabeth  A.  Phipps,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Mary  J.  Pierson,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

F.  G.  Platt,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*Eleazer  Pomeroy,  Windsor,  Conn. 

Rev.  Rockwell  Harmon  Potter,  Hartford,  Conn. 
*Ward  C.  Powell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

H.  D.  Prentice,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*Samuel  O.  Prentice,  Hartford,  Conn. 


i6o 


Rev.  William  C.  Prentiss,  East  Hartford,  Conn. 
*E.  V.  Preston,  Hartford,  Conn. 

L.  Monroe  Preston,  Easthampton,  Mass. 
♦Katharine  A.  Pritchard,  Waterbury,  Conn. 
Charles  Edward  Prior,  Hartford,  Conn. 

O.  B.  Purinton,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  O.  B.  Purinton,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Robert  Pyne,  Hartford,  Conn. 

R.  E.  Pyne,  Hartford,  Conn. 

♦Rev.  W.  W.  Ranney,  Colorado  Springs,  Col. 
♦Prof.  William  North  Rice,  Middletown,  Conn. 
Bradford  P.  Raymond,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Rev.  Samuel  W.  Raymond,  Hartford,  Conn. 
♦Edwin  Morgan  Ripley,  M.  D.,  Unionville,  Conn. 
Lewis  W.  Ripley,  Glastonbury,  Conn. 

♦Karl  A.  Reiche,  Hartford,  Conn. 

W.  A.  Richardson,  Rockville,  Conn. 

♦Henry  Roberts,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Elijah  Rogers,  Southington,  Conn. 

Dean  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

M.  Harriet  Rogers,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Sarah  P.  Rogers,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Carrie  Burritt  Root,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

G.  E.  Root,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Lyman  C.  Root,  Stamford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Helena  R.  Rossiter,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Edward  W.  Roszelle,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Rodney  W.  Roundy,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Francis  H.  Rowley,  Boston,  Mass. 

♦Mrs.  Elizabeth  C.  Russ,  Hartford,  Conn. 
♦William  C.  Russell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Winslow  Russell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  A.  Safford,  Hartford,  Conn. 

George  H.  Sage,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  T.  Sanford,  Hartford,  Conn. 

George  W.  Scott,  Middletown,  Conn. 

James  Brown  Scott,  Washington,  D.  C. 

♦Mrs.  Mary  E.  Scott,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Robert  Scrivener,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Helen  H.  Seabury,  New  Bedford,  Mass. 

Mary  B.  Seabury,  New  Bedford,  Mass. 
♦President  L.  Clark  Seelye,  Northampton,  Mass. 
♦Wm.  E.  Sessions,  Bristol,  Conn. 

May  Wright  Sewall,  Brookline,  Mass. 

J.  Sheldon,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Bertie  K.  Shipley,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

W.  H.  Short,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


1 6 1 


A.  M.  Sill,  Windsor,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Milton  Simon,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  J.  C.  Simpson,  Thompsonville,  Conn. 

E.  J.  Skinner,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Lillie  Burritt  Skinner,  New  Britain,  Conn. 
Edward  H.  Smiley,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Allan  K.  Smith,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  F.  B.  Smith,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  F.  E.  Smith,  East  Haven,  Conn. 

Frank  G.  Smith,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Herbert  Knox  Smith,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Hyman  F.  Smith,  Hartford,  Conn. 

James  E.  Smith,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  James  E.  Smith,  West  Hartford,  Conn. 
Jennie  M.  Smith,  Watertown,  Conn. 

Rev.  Sherrod  Soule,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Truman  J.  Spencer,  Hartford,  Conn. 

C.  H.  Spooner,  Northfield,  Vt. 

H.  H.  Spooner,  Kensington,  Conn. 

Edwin  L.  Sprague,  Boston,  Mass. 

*J.  B.  Standish,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

Rev.  Jared  Starr,  Newington  Junction,  Conn. 
Rev.  Wm.  F.  Stearns,  Norfolk,  Conn. 

Yeaton  S.  Stearns,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

*Elisha  J.  Steele,  Torrington,  Conn. 

Chas.  S.  Stern,  M.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Ezra  H.  Stevens,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Ezra  H.  Stevens,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Anson  Phelps  Stokes,  Jr.,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Edward  M.  Stone,  Hartford,  Conn. 

George  F.  Stone,  Hartford,  Conn. 

M.  Leo  M.  Stowell,  Cromwell,  Conn. 

Frederick  B.  Street,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Frederick  B.  Street,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Emeline  A.  Street,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

*Anna  C.  Strickland,  New  Britain,  Conn. 
George  W.  Stronach,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

Mrs.  George  W.  Stronach,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

B.  Norman  Strong,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Rev.  J.  T.  Sunderland,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Geo.  IP.  Sutton,  Springfield,  Conn. 

Peter  Suzio,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Mrs.  Fannie  H.  Talcott,  New  Britain,  Conn. 
George  S.  Talcott,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

H.  G.  Talcott,  Talcottville,  Conn. 

*Rev.  Elliott  F.  Talmadge,  Wauregan,  Conn. 
Mrs.  Edward  Taylor,  Danbury,  Conn. 


162 


Mrs.  J.  F.  Taylor,  Willimantic,  Conn. 

President  John  M.  Thomas,  Middlebury,  Vt. 
Charles  E.  Thompson,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Henry  M.  Thompson,  Hartford,  Conn. 

O.  G.  Tobie,  Bloomfield,  Conn. 

*Wilbur  F.  Tomlinson,  Danbury,  Conn. 

George  "W.  Traut,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Mrs.  J.  A.  Traut,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  J.  L.  Tryon,  Boston,  Mass. 

John  G.  Turnbull,  South  Manchester,  Conn. 

Ruel  C.  Tuttle,  Windsor,  Conn. 

*Rev.  J.  H.  Twichell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*  Willis  I.  Twitch  ell,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Fannie  L.  Twiss,  Meriden,  Conn. 

*Isaac  M.  Ullman,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

*Mabel  W.  Wainwright,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Prof.  Williston  Walker,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Louise  B.  Wallace,  South  Hadley,  Mass. 

Rev.  F.  P.  Waters,  Rocky  Hill,  Conn. 

H.  C.  Weaver,  New  London,  Conn. 

Mrs.  H.  C.  Weaver,  New  London,  Conn. 

Thomas  S.  Weaver,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Samuel  O.  Weldon,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

J.  N.  Welles,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

Mary  C.  Welles,  Newington,  Conn. 

*Ernest  A.  Wells,  M.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 
^Herbert  C.  W^ells,  Warehouse  Point,  Conn. 
*Mrs.  Herbert  C.  Wells,  Warehouse  Point,  Conn. 
*Rev.  Herbert  J.  White,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  O.  Whitmore,  Hartford.  Conn. 

Alice  L.  Wilcox,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Emily  J.  Wilcox,  Bloomfield,  Conn. 

Arthur  C.  Willard,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

S.  F.  Willard,  Wethersfield,  Conn. 

H.  H.  Willes,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*Augusta  H.  Williams,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*A.  W.  C.  Williams,  Hartford,  Conn. 

F.  B.  Williams,  Hartford,  Conn. 

*James  S.  Williams,  Glastonbury,  Conn. 

*Samuel  H.  Williams,  Glastonbury,  Conn. 

Mrs.  W.  H.  Williams,  Derby,  Conn. 

*J.  Herbert  Wilson,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

C.  T.  Winchester,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Guy  M.  Winslow,  Auburndale,  Mass. 

*Mrs.  Antoinette  Eno  Wood,  Simsbury,  Conn. 
*Mrs.  E.  R.  Wood,  Bloomfield,  Conn. 

Rev.  Watson  Woodruff,  New  Britain,  Conn. 

Rev.  David_L.  Yale,  Enfield,  Conn. 


INDEX. 


PAGE 


Adams,  Rev.  John  Coleman,  Prayer  ........  15 

Alexandra,  Queen,  Telegram  of  Sympathy  to  .  .  .  .  .  .  114 

American  Peace  Society,  Annual  Meeting  [See  report  in  Advocate  of  Peace 

for  fune,  igio )  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  •  •  112 

Andrews,  Mrs.  Fannie  Fern,  Addresses  of  .  .  .  .  .  67,  132 

Appendix  .............  138 

Atkins,  Rev.  G.  Glenn,  D.D.,  Address  of  ......  16 

Baldwin,  Hon.  Simeon  E.,  Address  of  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  115 

Banquet  at  the  Allyn  House  .........  133 

Bartholdt,  Hon.  Richard,  Telegram  from  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  136 

Beals,  Rev.  Charles  E.,  Address  of  .......  7 

Brooks,  Hon.  Isaac  W.,  Welcome  ........  26 

Bryan,  Hon.  William  J.,  Letter  .........  47 

Brewster,  Rt.  Rev.  Chauncey  B.,  Introductory  Remarks  .  .  .  .  15,  21 

Member  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  .  .  .  .  .  112 

Bryce,  Ambassador  James,  Letter . 47 

Burritt,  Elihu,  Report  of  Burritt  Celebration  ......  73 

Burritt,  Elihu,  Hon.  James  Brown  Scott . 83 

Burritt,  Elihu,  Rabbi  Stephen  S.  Wise . 89 

Call,  Principal  Arthur  Deerin,  Address  of  Welcome  and  Introduction  of 

President  of  Congress . 25 

Member  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  .  .  .  .  .  112 

Call,  Mrs.  Mabel  W.  S.,  Article  by . 138 

Causes  of  War  and  the  Bases  of  Peace,  The,  Rev.  G.  Glenn  Atkins,  D.  D.  16 

Chandler,  Hon  George  B.,  Address  of . 133 

Committees  of  the  Congress  .........  148 

Dickinson,  Hon.  Jacob  M.,  Letter  .  .  .  .  .  •  •  •  IT4 

Donahue,  Charles  J.  .....••••••  2 

Draper,  Hon.  Eben  S.,  Letter  .  .  .  .  •  •  •  •  •  TI4 

Dynamic  of  a  Successful  World  Peace  Movement,  The,  President  John 

M.  Thomas  62 

Europe’s  Optical  Illusion,  Rev.  Walter  Walsh . 108 

Fairbanks,  Hon.  Charles  W.,  Letter  ........  47 

Foster,  Hon.  John  W.,  Address  of  .  .  •  •  •  •  •  122 

Gifford,  Rev.  O.  P.,  D.D.,  Address  of . 54 

Ginn,  Edwin,  Address  of  97 

Gompers,  Samuel,  Letter  ...•••••••  47 

Growing  Power  of  Public  Sentiment  for  Peace,  The,  Benjamin  F.  True- 

blood,  LL.D . 22 

Halloran,  Hon.  Joseph  M.,  Welcome . 81 

Hewes,  Dwight  J33 

Honda,  Masujiro,  Address  of . r36 

How  Women  Must  Defend  the  Republic,  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead  .  .  57 


164 


pac;e 


Introduction 

International  Law  as  a  Factor  in  the  Establishment  of  Peace,  Hon. 

Simeon  E.  Baldwin . XI5 

International  School  of  Peace,  The,  Edwin  Ginn  .....  97 

Jacobus,  Professor  Melancthon  W.,  Address  of  •  47 

Johnson,  Burges,  Poem  by . T34 

Jump,  Rev.  Herbert  A.,  Announcement  of  Result  of  Prize  Medal 

Contests  ....••••••••  81 

Kilpatrick,  Prof.  T.  B.,  D.  D.,  Address  of  (By  mistake  printed  Fitzpatrick)  95 

Knox,  Hon.  Philander  C.,  Letter . 47 

Labor’s  Interest  in  World  Peace,  John  Brown  Lennon  ....  3 

Lennon,  John  Brown,  Address  of  •  ••••••  3 

Lessons  from  the  History  of  the  Peace  Movement,  Benjamin  F.  d  rue- 

blood,  LL.D . 40 

Luther,  President  Flavel  S.,  Chairman  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  112 

Maier,  Rev.  Henry  W.,  Prayer . 79 

Mead,  Edwin  D.,  Address  of . 101 

Member  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  .  •  •  •  •  112 

Remarks  of  .....••  I36 

Mead,  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames,  Address  of . •  57 

Members  of  the  Congress  ....•••••  !54 
Mitchell,  Charles  Eliot,  Presiding  Officer  at  New  Britain  .  .  •  81 

Moore,  Rev.  Richard  F.,  LL.D.,  Prayer  81 

Moxom,  Rev.  Philip  S.,  D.  D.,  Remarks  of . x35 

New  Hampshire  in  the  Peace  Movement,  Rev.  James  L.  Tryon  .  .  144 

New  Internationalism  in  the  Schools,  The,  Mrs.  May  Wright  Sewall  .  71 

Officers  of  the  Congress . 1V 

Outline  of  the  Early  Peace  Movement  in  Connecticut,  An,  Mrs.  Mabel 

W.  S.  Call . x38 

Paine,  Hon.  Robert  Treat,  Telegram  of  Appreciation  to  .  .  .  •  “4 

Peace  of  God,  The,  Professor  T.  B.  Kilpatrick,  D.  D . 95 

Platform  of  Resolutions . •  •  •  •  TI3 

Adoption  of  .  .  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  *  •  ir3 

Creation  of  Committee  on . 4^ 

Potter,  Rev.  Rockwell  Harmon,  D.D.,  Ifttroductory  Remarks  .  .  .  1,  2,  7 

Member  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  •  •  •  •  112 

Power  of  Women  to  Promote  Peace  in  the  Schools,  lhe,  Mrs.  Fannie 

Fern  Andrews  ....•••••••  ^7 

Present  Problem:  How  Wffir  is  to  be  Abolished,  The,  Dean  Henry  Wade 

Rogers,  LL.D.  ...••••••••  2^ 

Program  of  the  Proceedings  ....••••• 

Ralston,  Hon.  Jackson  H.,  Address  of  ......  48 

Raymond,  Ex-President  Bradford  P.,  Member  of  Committee  on  Resolu¬ 
tions  .  .  .  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  112 

Raymond,  Judge  Robert  F.,  Remarks  of . IT5 

Resolutions,  Committee  on . •  •  112 

Creation  of  Committee  on .  4^ 

Platform  of  .  .  .  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  *  IT3 


i6s 

PAGE 

Results  of  the  Two  Hague  Conferences  and  the  Demands  upon  the 

Third  Conference,  The,  Edwin  D.  Mead  .  .  .  •  .  .  ioi 

Rogers,  Dean  Henry  Wade,  LL.D.,  Address  of  ....  26 

Remarks  of  ...........  81 

Toastmaster  ...........  133 

Scott,  Hon.  James  Brown,  Address  of  .....  83 

Sewall,  Mrs.  May  Wright,  Address  of  ......  71 

Smith,  Hon.  Edward  H.,  Welcome  ........  26 

Smith,  Hon.  Herbert  Knox,  Address  of  .  .  .  .  .  .  133 

Some  Supposed  Just  Causes  of  War,  Hon.  Jackson  H.  Ralston  .  .  48 

Table  of  Contents  ...........  ix 

Taft,  President  William  PL,  Letter  ........  47 

Teacher  and  Internationalism,  The,  Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews  .  .  132 

Teachers’  Meeting  ...........  132 

Telegrams,  Cablegrams,  etc.,  Queen  Alexandra  .  .  .  .  .  114 

Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  136 

Hon.  Robert  Treat  Paine  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  114 

Thomas,  President  John  M.,  Address  of  ......  62 

Member  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  .  .  .  .  .  112 

Three-Plank  Peace  Platform,  The,  Rev.  O.  P.  Gifford,  D.D.  ...  54 

Trueblood,  Benjamin  F.,  LL.D.,  Addresses  of  .  .  .  .  -22,  40,  136 

Member  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  .  .  .  .  .  112 

Tryon,  Rev.  James  L.,  Article  by  .  .  .  .  .  .  •  144 

Utter,  Hon.  George  H.,  Address  of  .......  81 

Member  of  Committee  on  Resolutions  .  .  .  .  .  .  112 

Walsh,  Rev.  Walter,  Address  of  ........  108 

Remarks  of  ...........  135 

War  Not  Inevitable,  Hon.  John  W.  Foster  .  .  .  .  .  .  122 

White,  Principal  Marcus,  Presiding  Officer  at  New  Britain  .  .  .  79 

Weaver,  Superintendent  Thomas  S.  .......  132 

Wise,  Rabbi  Stephen  S.,  Address  of  .  .....  89 

Workman  and  the  Gun  Man,  The,  Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals  ...  7 

Yankee,  Veteran,  The,  Poem ,  Burges  Johnson  .  .  .  .  .  .  134 


Date  Due 

JAY  28  ’54 

FEB  1  9  ’625 

1 

1 

rnmiwtt 

t 

tm 

JX1933  .1910 

Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  New 
Drinrotnn  Thpnloaical  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1  1012  00025  9277 


